[Editors note: Welcome to the amNew York Law Bench Report, where we will feature notable rulings from state and federal courts, brief news bulletins that impact the judiciary and announcements from judges’ chambers. Are we missing anything? Contact editor-in-chief Andrew Denney at adenney@schnepsmedia.com]
Circuit affirms district ruling that ‘ghost gun’ seller isn’t covered by insurance
A panel from the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that, under the letter of Texas law, two insurance companies have no duty to cover a firearms dealer accused of peddling “ghost gun” kits.
Affirming a ruling by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield of the Southern District of New York, a unanimous Second Circuit panel found that insurers Granite State Insurance Co. and National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh do not have to defend Texas-based gun manufacturer Primary Arms lawsuits filed by the governments of New York State and the cities of Buffalo and Rochester.
The state and local governments allege that Primary Arms launched a marketing and sales scheme that “helped launch a surge of gun violence in New York,” according to court papers.
The company’s role in the proliferation of uncatalogued firearms and related accessories have foisted additional costs on local agencies by requiring them to redirect law enforcement resources and spending more on health care and community services, the plaintiffs claim.
The parties in the suit agree that Texas law applies in the case, insofar as to determine the insurers’ duty to cover Primary Arms’ losses from the New York lawsuits. And because the Empire State lawsuits do not allege that an “accident” brought harm to the plaintiffs — rather than intentional acts — the insurers had no duty to defend under Lone Star State law.
“When Primary Arms advertised its products to these buyers as ‘easily convertible’ into finished firearms, it sent its products into New York ‘knowing, intending, or being willfully blind to the fact that these products would be converted into working, unserialized firearms,’” Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote for the panel. “Therefore, Primary Arms intended not only to sell its products but to sell them specifically to people ‘who could not buy a firearm through legitimate channels,’ and who ‘cannot and should not have a deadly weapon,’ but who nevertheless were motivated to possess a gun.”
The case is captioned Granite State Insurance Co. v. Primary Arms, 24-cv2748
New York Court of Appeals stands by murder conviction despite jury report of racial bias
In a split decision, New York’s high court affirmed a murder conviction over claims that members of the jury expressed racial bias.
New York’s high court confirmed with a 6-1 vote that a trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial after one of its jurors accused others of making racist remarks during deliberations.
The remarks happened in the Erie County Court trial that convicted defendant Jaylin Wiggins, a Black man, of second-degree murder, first-degree assault and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
One of the jurors reported that when looking at nighttime footage of the crime, another had said that “all Black people look the same in the dark.” The court pulled the juror aside who had reported the incident to ask her about it. Although she first said that around six of her fellow jurors had made comments expressing bigotry, she later said that her fellow jurors had apologized about it.
The court also questioned the juror who said “all Black people look the same in the dark,” and she insisted, “I didn’t make it in that way.”
The high court found that the trial court judge conducted a “probing and tactful inquiry” of both the juror who had reported the incident racial bias and the juror who made the comment.
“The mere fact that race entered the jury’s deliberations does not establish that racial bias infected their verdict,” Associate Judge Michael Garcia wrote for the court. “Jurors discussing identification evidence — particularly the difficulty of identifying individuals in nighttime, black and white video footage — may necessarily touch upon physical characteristics including race without harboring or expressing racial animus.”
Judges Anthony Cannataro, Rowan Wilson, Shirley Troutman, Caitlin Halligan and Madeline Singas concurred.
Associate Judge Jenny Rivera argued in a lone dissent that the case should have ended in a mistrial because the lone juror of color did not guarantee to the court that the racial animus had been “extinguished” and the jury deliberations were tainted with racial tropes.
“We cannot have confidence that the defendant received a fair trial where approximately half of the jurors’ impartiality was directly placed into question,” Rivera wrote in her dissenting opinion.
Citing clerk’s aside with jury, appeals court orders new trial for roller skating injury case
A lower court “improvidently exercised its discretion” by denying a motion to dismiss a verdict handed up after a court clerk met with jurors in a personal injury trial without parties’ counsel present, an appellate panel ruled.
According to court papers, plaintiff Lori Saporito-Elliott’s lawsuit against defendant United Skates of America, alleging personal injuries suffered while roller skating on the defendant’s premises in Nassau County, went to trial.
During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court stating that jurors “have a question.” In response, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Christopher Modelewski dispatched a court clerk to inform jurors that their question must be written out on a provided form.
According to a ruling by the Appellate Division, Second Department, the clerk went to the jury room and spoke with jurors without counsel for the parties present. Shortly thereafter, the Second Department wrote, the jury returned to the courtroom and handed up a unanimous ruling in the defendant’s favor.
Three jurors testified that the panel’s conversation had no effect on its verdict, court papers state. But, the appeals court found, the clerk’s conduct “cannot be found to be harmless.”
“By offering opinions and/or explanations on the meaning of the legal concepts at issue in the trial, the clerk impermissibly interfered in the jury’s deliberations and usurped the role of the court to, in consultation with counsel, instruct the jurors on the law applicable to the facts,” the Second Department panel wrote.
The case is captioned Saporito-Elliott v. United Skates of America, 60563/2013.
