The New York Appellate Division has upheld a jury's verdict in the case of Perchuk v. Narod, which centers on a breach of contract dispute between shareholders of a company. The ruling affects the plaintiff, Beth Johnston Perchuk, and the defendant, Randy Narod, and clarifies the court's stance on jury verdicts in contract disputes.
In this case, Perchuk and Narod entered into a shareholder agreement in March 2015, where Perchuk transferred a portion of her stocks in IWLA, Inc. to Narod. The relationship between the two soured, leading to allegations of breach of contract regarding payments that Narod was supposed to make to Perchuk. The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the authority of jury verdicts and the standards for challenging those verdicts.
The dispute began when Perchuk claimed that Narod failed to pay her the agreed weekly sum of $3,000 as outlined in a Partnership Agreement Addendum. After Narod stopped making payments around August 2016, Perchuk and her company, IWLA, Inc., filed a lawsuit against him in November 2017. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, where a jury ultimately found in favor of Perchuk, awarding her $36,000 in damages.
Following the jury's decision, Perchuk sought to challenge the verdict, claiming it was a result of a miscalculation or contrary to the evidence presented. However, the trial court denied her request to set aside the verdict. This led to the appeals that were recently decided by the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division, which includes Justices Francesca E. Connolly, Paul Wooten, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Phillip Hom, ruled on May 13, 2026. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the order to fix prejudgment interest, stating that the plaintiffs were not aggrieved by that order. The court also affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Perchuk, stating, "[t]he correction of a jury verdict may be appropriate in those exceptional situations where it is clear that there has been a mere ministerial error in reporting the verdict."
The court emphasized that there was no indication that the jury's decision was based on a clerical error. Instead, the jurors confirmed their award during polling, which meant that any further inquiry would intrude on the jurors' deliberative process. The court noted, "[a] jury verdict on the issue of damages should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless . . . the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence."
The ruling confirms that the jury's verdict was reasonable based on the evidence presented. The court stated that a reasonable jury could have weighed the conflicting evidence and arrived at the conclusion that Perchuk was entitled to $36,000 in damages. This outcome underscores the importance of jury discretion in civil cases, particularly in contract disputes.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It reinforces the principle that jury verdicts are given significant weight in the legal system. This case may serve as a reference for future cases involving breaches of contract and the standards for challenging jury decisions. It also highlights the necessity for parties to present compelling evidence if they wish to contest a jury's findings.
Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for how similar cases are treated in New York courts. It emphasizes the importance of clear evidence and the jurors' role in interpreting that evidence when making decisions about damages in breach of contract cases.
As for next steps, it is unclear whether Perchuk plans to appeal this ruling further. The court filing did not indicate any related cases pending that could influence the outcome of this matter. However, the possibility of an appeal to a higher court remains, depending on the strategies of the involved parties.