New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

If a plaintiff disputes a proposed jury instruction after the jury is already deliberating, can this be grounds for appeal?

1. Yes, because the plaintiff objected to the instruction pretrial

2. Yes, because the jury wasn’t properly instructed

3. No, because the objection was made too late

4. No, because the jury instruction was standard practice

The correct answer is: No, because the objection was made too late

The reasoning behind the correct answer centers on the timing and procedure concerning jury instructions. Once a jury begins deliberations, the opportunity to contest or dispute jury instructions becomes significantly limited. The law typically requires parties to raise objections to jury instructions prior to the jury's deliberation. This preemptive requirement ensures that any disputes can be resolved before the jury begins considering their verdict, promoting efficiency and clarity in the trial process. If a plaintiff waits until after the jury has commenced deliberating to object to a proposed jury instruction, courts usually view this as an untimely objection. As a result, such late objections generally do not provide grounds for appeal, as they do not adhere to the procedural standards set for timely objections. The expectation is that participants in a trial make their objections known when the instructions are offered, enabling the court to address any concerns in real-time. In contrast to this, other potential reasons such as the jury being improperly instructed may not hold because the plaintiff's failure to object in a timely manner negates the chance of raising that claim on appeal. The standard nature of the jury instructions also does not provide an avenue for appeal if the procedure for objecting was not followed correctly. Therefore, the core principle is that it is crucial for parties