Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

March 11, 2020

NY Appellate Court Holds Agreed-Upon Summary Trial Rules Trump Court Authority

A summary jury trial is a method of alternative dispute resolution that has become increasingly utilized across New York State. It involves relaxed evidentiary rules and shortened proceedings designed to conserve resources of both courts and litigants while still allowing disputes to be resolved by a jury of peers. Parties are permitted to stipulate to the format and method of a summary jury trial as long as the agreement is approved by the court. In the absence of an agreement, local summary jury trial rules govern.

The value of carefully negotiating a private summary jury trial agreement was highlighted in the Appellate Division, First Department’s recent decision in Vargas v. LaMacchia. In Vargas, the lower court sua sponte declared a mistrial, setting aside a summary trial jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Despite its characterization of the lower court’s actions as an “attempt to correct an admittedly erroneous evidentiary ruling” in the interest of justice, the First Department reversed and reinstated the jury verdict.

According to the First Department, the lower court’s declaration of a mistrial constituted reversible error because it violated the terms of the parties’ summary jury trial agreement. A summary jury trial agreement constitutes a legally binding contract from which neither the litigants nor the court can deviate. Accordingly, regardless of the extent of the error the lower court sought to correct, it was prohibited from declaring a mistrial and setting aside the jury verdict by the parties’ agreement.

In reaching its decision, the First Department contrasted the facts of Vargas with cases in which the parties’ summary jury trial agreements allowed for corrections of errors of law either explicitly through the terms of the agreement or by omission.

The Vargas case highlights the importance of both parties carefully drafting and negotiating the terms of the summary jury agreement. While the finality of a summary jury trial is typically viewed as one of its most desirable aspects, it may be prudent to specify certain scenarios in the summary jury trial agreement—such as when an obvious error of law has caused significant prejudice to a party—that give rise to post-trial motions and appeals. This type of provision would allow parties to enjoy the benefits of summary jury trials, such as lowered costs and shortened proceedings, while protecting themselves from unjust results based on obvious and significant errors of law.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Daniel Coleman, associate, at or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


US Supreme Court Shrinks Federal Authority Under the Clean Water Act


Supreme Court Strikes Down Taxing Authorities' Right to Retain Surplus Monies in "Strict Foreclosures"


Appellate Division, Third Department, Denies Appeal and Upholds Office of Renewable Energy Siting Regulations


NYS Public Service Commission Formally Initiates Proceeding to Establish What Constitutes "Zero Emission" Under the CLCPA


NYS Appellate Court Dismisses Common Law Claims Against Contractor for Injuries Sustained by "Special Employee"


Child Victim Act Complaint Dismissed for Failure to Sufficiently Allege Special Duty

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out