Key Takeaway
Grace v NYC Transit case demonstrates how failing to object to jury instructions and verdict sheets results in waiver, requiring fundamental error for appellate review.
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing procedural issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Grace v New York City Tr. Auth., 2014 NY Slip Op 08362 (1st Dept. 2014)
When you sit at the charge conference, make sure you note your objections to the jury charges, or the instructions. CPLR 4110-b. The failure to do this will result in a waiver. The Appellate Division discussed this in detail:
(The verdict sheet disaggregated loss of enjoyment of life from pain and suffering – which is wrong. I am unsure with the Trial Justice allowed this, but I was not there so I cannot comment)
“The record reflects that the jury charge correctly advised that loss of enjoyment of life was a component of pain and suffering (see Nussbaum v Gibstein, 73 NY2d 912, 914 ). Defendant argues that the verdict sheet was inconsistent with this instruction. However, defendant concedes that it failed to object to the verdict sheet. Thus, defendant failed to preserve the issue of the error in the verdict sheet for review by this Court (see Klein-Bullock v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills, 63 AD3d 536, 536-537 ; London v Lepley, 259 AD2d 298, 299 ).
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Where a party fails to object to errors in a verdict sheet, the charge becomes the law applicable to the determination of the case, and on appeal, this Court will review only if the error was “fundamental” (Aguilar v New York City Tr. Auth., 81 AD3d 509, 510 ). We find that the alleged conflict between the jury charge and the verdict sheet was not fundamental since it did not confuse or create doubt as to the principle of law to be applied, or improperly shift fault, such that the “jury was prevented from fairly considering the issues at trial” (Curanovic v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 975, 977 ;Clark v Interlaken Owners, 2 AD3d 338, 340 ).
Related Articles
- Understanding how litigation delay tactics affect procedural requirements in no-fault cases
- Single motion rule and how procedural defects can affect your case
- How form defects can be corrected through proper reply procedures
- When courts give multiple chances to correct procedural mistakes
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, CPLR 4110-b preservation requirements and waiver doctrine may have been subject to legislative amendments or evolving case law interpretations regarding objection specificity and fundamental error exceptions. Practitioners should verify current preservation standards and any modifications to waiver rules through silence, particularly regarding verdict sheet objections in personal injury cases.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
187 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
Consolidation and belated discovery denied
Court denies consolidation and amendment motions in no-fault insurance case, ruling on discovery procedures and fraudulent incorporation claims.
Jul 19, 2010
Understanding Nunc Pro Tunc Relief: New York’s Historic Serve-and-File System
Learn about New York's abolished serve-and-file system and nunc pro tunc relief. Essential procedural history for Long Island and NYC attorneys.
Jun 18, 2009
Death knell to 2309(c)
Court of Appeals case on CPLR 2309(c) compliance for out-of-state affidavits in New York no-fault insurance litigation, establishing proper notarization standards.
Aug 20, 2014
Five Boro Psychological v GEICO: A Psychologist's Affirmation Fails Under CPLR 2106
Five Boro defeated GEICO's motion under the former psychologist-affirmation rule. The 2024 change and the separate oath-attestation issue explained.
Jun 18, 2012Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a procedural issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
