Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer
Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager.
In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case.
Newark, N.J. (December 30, 2024) - Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager.
In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case.
The appellate court reviewed the trial record and found no miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not request a specific charge on the landlord's duty during the trial and that the standard negligence instruction was appropriate. The verdict sheet was deemed straightforward and not confusing. The court also determined that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the testimony and objections, and issued curative instructions to the jury regarding any potentially prejudicial remarks. Additionally, the court found no error in the use of the adverse inference charge.
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial was conducted fairly and that the plaintiffs' arguments did not warrant a new trial. The jury's verdict in favor of the defendants was upheld, as the court found that there was ample competent evidence for the jury to determine that the defendants were not negligent in maintaining the apartment.
For more information on this decision, contact the attorneys involved. Visit our National Trial Practice page for more information on our capabilities.