(a) General and Special Verdict Defined. The court may direct the jury to find either a general verdict or a special verdict. A general verdict is one in which the jury finds in favor of one or more parties. A special verdict is one in which the jury finds the facts only, leaving the court to determine which party is entitled to judgment thereon.
R 4111.General and special verdicts and written interrogatories
Article 41. Trial by a Jury · Last amended 2009 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceRule 4111 defines general and special verdicts, sets the procedure for submitting either to a jury along with written interrogatories, and requires juries in personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death cases to itemize the damages behind their award.
Full Text of CPLR 4111
(b) Special Verdict. When the court requires a jury to return a special verdict, the court shall submit to the jury written questions susceptible of brief answer or written forms of the several findings which might properly be made or it shall use any other appropriate method of submitting the issues and requiring written findings thereon. The court shall give sufficient instruction to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue. If the court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or evidence, each party waives his right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted unless before the jury retires he demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without demand, the court may make an express finding or shall be deemed to have made a finding in accordance with the judgment.
(c) General Verdict Accompanied by Answers to Interrogatories. When the court requires the jury to return a general verdict, it may also require written answers to written interrogatories submitted to the jury upon one or more issues of fact. The court shall give sufficient instruction to enable the jury to render a general verdict and to answer the interrogatories. When the answers are consistent with each other but one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court shall direct the entry of judgment in accordance with the answers, notwithstanding the general verdict, or it shall require the jury to further consider its answers and verdict or it shall order a new trial. When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is inconsistent with the general verdict, the court shall require the jury to further consider its answers and verdict or it shall order a new trial.
(d) Itemized verdict in medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice actions. In all actions seeking damages for medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice, or damages for wrongful death as a result of medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice, the court shall instruct the jury that if the jury finds a verdict awarding damages it shall in its verdict specify the applicable elements of special and general damages upon which the award is based and the amount assigned to each element, including but not limited to medical expenses, dental expenses, podiatric expenses, loss of earnings, impairment of earning ability, and pain and suffering. In all such actions, each element shall be further itemized into amounts intended to compensate for damages which have been incurred prior to the verdict and amounts intended to compensate for damages to be incurred in the future. In itemizing amounts intended to compensate for future wrongful death damages, future loss of services, and future loss of consortium, the jury shall return the total amount of damages for each such item. In itemizing amounts intended to compensate for future pain and suffering, the jury shall return the total amounts of damages for future pain and suffering and shall set forth the period of years over which such amounts are intended to provide compensation. In itemizing amounts intended to compensate for future economic and pecuniary damages other than in wrongful death actions, the jury shall set forth as to each item of damage, (i) the annual amount in current dollars, (ii) the period of years for which such compensation is applicable and the date of commencement for that item of damage, (iii) the growth rate applicable for the period of years for the item of damage, and (iv) a finding of whether the loss or item of damage is permanent. Where the needs change in the future for a particular item of damage, that change shall be submitted to the jury as a separate item of damage commencing at that time. In all such actions other than wrongful death actions, the jury shall be instructed that the findings it makes with reference to future economic damages, shall be used by the court to determine future damages which are payable to the plaintiff over time.
(e) Itemized Verdict in Certain Actions. In an action brought to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death, which is not subject to subdivision (d) of this rule, the court shall instruct the jury that if the jury finds a verdict awarding damages, it shall in its verdict specify the applicable elements of special and general damages upon which the award is based and the amount assigned to each element including, but not limited to, medical expenses, dental expenses, loss of earnings, impairment of earning ability, and pain and suffering. Each element shall be further itemized into amounts intended to compensate for damages that have been incurred prior to the verdict and amounts intended to compensate for damages to be incurred in the future. In itemizing amounts intended to compensate for future damages, the jury shall set forth the period of years over which such amounts are intended to provide compensation. In actions in which article fifty-A or fifty-B of this chapter applies, in computing said damages, the jury shall be instructed to award the full amount of future damages, as calculated, without reduction to present value.
(f) [Redesignated]
Plain-English Summary
Rule 4111 gives the court two different ways to send a case to the jury. A general verdict has the jury find in favor of one party or another, without more; a special verdict has the jury find the underlying facts only, leaving the court to work out from those facts who wins. When the court chooses a special verdict, it submits written questions or forms covering the findings the jury needs to make, with instructions sufficient to guide those findings. If the court leaves out an issue the pleadings or evidence raised, each party gives up the right to a jury trial of that issue unless someone demands its submission before the jury retires; if nobody demands it, the court can make its own finding on the missing issue, or the judgment itself is treated as if the court had.
A court can also combine the two approaches, asking the jury for a general verdict alongside written answers to specific interrogatories. If those interrogatory answers agree with each other but clash with the general verdict, the court can enter judgment based on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider both, or order a new trial. If the answers conflict with each other as well as with the verdict, reconsideration or a new trial are the only options; the court cannot pick and choose based on inconsistent answers.
Two subdivisions require itemized verdicts once damages are awarded. In medical, dental, or podiatric malpractice cases, and related wrongful-death claims, the jury must break its award down by category, medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and the rest, and split each category further between damages already incurred and damages still to come, following a detailed formula for how future economic losses get calculated year by year. Personal injury, property damage, and wrongful-death cases outside that malpractice category follow a similar but less detailed itemization requirement, one that still separates past from future damages and, in cases governed by the state's structured-judgment articles, requires the jury to award the full future amount without discounting it to present value.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the difference between a general verdict and a special verdict in New York?
A general verdict has the jury find in favor of a party outright; a special verdict has the jury find only the underlying facts, leaving the court to decide who wins based on those facts.
What happens if the court forgets to ask the jury about an issue in a special verdict?
Each party waives the right to a jury trial of that omitted issue unless someone demands it before the jury retires; otherwise the court can make its own finding on it.
What if the jury's interrogatory answers don't match its general verdict?
If the answers agree with each other, the court can enter judgment on the answers instead of the verdict, send the jury back to reconsider, or order a new trial; if the answers conflict with each other too, reconsideration or a new trial are the only options.
Do New York juries have to break down how they calculated damages?
Yes, in personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death cases, the jury must itemize its award by category and separate past damages from future damages.
Is the itemization different for medical malpractice cases?
Yes, subdivision (d) applies a more detailed formula to medical, dental, and podiatric malpractice and related wrongful-death cases, requiring year-by-year figures for future economic damages.
Does the jury discount future damages to today's dollars?
In actions governed by the state's structured-judgment articles, no; the jury awards the full calculated amount of future damages without reducing it to present value.
Advisory Committee Notes
This rule, which replaces CPA §§ 458 and 459, is adapted from Federal rule 49. While retaining the basic provisions of former New York law with respect to general and special verdicts, the rule makes some minor changes.
In order to avoid the former confusion in terminology between “special verdicts” (facts found by the jury to be used as a basis for judgment by the court) and “special findings” (facts found by the jury in support of a general verdict), the term “special” is restricted to special verdicts and the term “answers to written interrogatories” is used for findings in support of a general verdict.
The major difficulty in the use of special verdicts has been the requirement that a special verdict must find all the facts necessary to judgment. Under this rule, the inadvertent omission of a material issue of fact from the special verdict can invalidate a jury trial. See Fromer v Glamour-Wear Mfg. Co. 276 App Div 420, 95 NYS2d 302 (1st Dep’t 1950); Coulter v Pomeroy, 265 App Div 51, 38 NYS2d 22 (3d Dep’t 1942); Manning v Monaghan, 23 NY 539 (1861).
In order to eliminate this difficulty, this rule provides that if the court omits any issue of fact in submitting the issues to the jury each party waives his right to a jury trial of the omitted issue unless, before the jury retires, he demands its submission to the jury. As to an issue omitted without such demand, the rule further provides that the court may make a finding or, if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accordance with the judgment.
Where the answer to a written interrogatory is inconsistent with the general verdict, § 459 provided that the court must have given judgment based on the answer to the written interrogatory. Under this rule, the court is given the additional options of directing the jury to further consider its answers or of ordering a new trial. Moreover, the court’s power to direct the entry of judgment based on the answer to a written interrogatory which is inconsistent with the general verdict is restricted to the situation where the answers to all the written interrogatories submitted to the jury are consistent with each other.
The provision in former § 459 that the special verdict or special finding must have been filed with the clerk and entered in the minutes is covered in CPLR rule 4112, dealing with entry of verdict.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963; amd, L 1976, ch 955, § 8; L 1984, ch 701, § 3, eff Oct 1, 1984; L 1985, ch 294, § 6; L 1985, ch 760, § 5; L 1986, ch 485, § 7; L 1986, ch 682, § 7; L 1994, ch 100, § 5, eff May 16, 1994; L 2003, ch 86, § 1, eff July 26, 2003; L 2009, ch 494, §§ 4, 5 (Part F), eff Nov 12, 2009.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: general verdict vs special verdict New Yorkspecial verdict New York civil trialitemized verdict New York personal injuryjury interrogatories New York civil trialmedical malpractice verdict itemization New York