Santana v. New York City Transit Authority

Ana Santana (plaintiff), who was Puerto Rican, sued the New York City Transit Authority (authority) (defendant) to recover for injuries she suffered when a subway car in which she was riding stopped suddenly. Santana was a Spanish speaker who did not speak English fluently. Accordingly, a court-appointed translator translated Santana’s testimony. Per the translator, Santana testified that the train stopped suddenly as if it had bumped into something. However, a Spanish-speaking juror advised the court, outside of the presence of the other jurors, that he believed Santana actually testified that the train crashed rather than merely bumped into something. The juror’s belief was based on his understanding of the Puerto Rican version of Spanish that Santana spoke; the translator spoke a different Spanish dialect. In chambers, Santana confirmed the juror’s belief that her testimony was that the subway car crashed into something. Upon questioning by the court, the Spanish-speaking juror stated that he did not discuss the matter with the other jurors and that he could deal with a situation in which his understanding of Santana’s testimony differed from the translator’s understanding, with the proviso that the juror would advise the court if he believed there was a significant difference between the testimony and the translation. The juror further confirmed that he would rely solely on the translator’s rendition of Santana’s testimony rather than his own understanding of Spanish. Santana then returned to the witness stand, where she again testified that the subway car had crashed into something rather than bumped into something. In addition, the court considered whether it should declare a mistrial pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 4011.