2 total
Jury notice struck due to COVID-19 trial delays and the advanced age of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident claim due to systemic delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The plaintiffs, who were approximately 70 years old, argued that waiting for a jury trial would cause significant delay and prejudice.
The court applied recent appellate authority and found that the uncertainty of securing a jury trial date, combined with the plaintiffs' age and the relative expedience of a judge-alone trial, warranted striking the jury notice.
The motion was granted.
Motion to exclude late-served video surveillance denied; short adjournment granted to review the evidence.
On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.
The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.
The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.
A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.
