## Facts

- Joseph Siriano, a white construction worker, sued Beth Israel Hospital and multiple contractors in a personal-injury action.
- During jury selection, the court allocated 9 peremptory challenges to plaintiffs and 15 to defendants (3 per defendant).
- By March 16, 1994, two white jurors had been seated.
- Plaintiff used five peremptory strikes (four against white venirepersons and one against a Black venireperson).
- Defendants used eleven peremptory strikes; nine were against minority venirepersons (six Black and three Latino) and two against white venirepersons.
- The nine minority venirepersons struck by defendants were the only minority venirepersons examined to that point.
- Plaintiff objected that defendants were using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race and requested a Batson-type inquiry and corrective action.
- The trial court conducted the Batson/Edmonson sequence: prima facie showing, race-neutral explanations, and judicial determination whether purposeful discrimination occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether the Equal Protection Clause, as applied through Batson and Edmonson, prohibits private parties in a civil action from exercising peremptory challenges on the basis of race.
2. Whether striking all examined minority venirepersons established a prima facie showing of purposeful racial discrimination.
3. Whether defendants’ purportedly race-neutral explanations were credible or pretextual.
4. What remedies are appropriate when a trial court finds a Batson/Edmonson violation during ongoing civil jury selection.

## Decision

- The court held that Batson restrictions apply to peremptory challenges exercised by private litigants in civil cases, because the jury-selection process constitutes state action for equal-protection purposes.
- The court found a prima facie case of discrimination based on defendants’ pattern of strikes against all examined minority venirepersons.
- The court rejected defendants’ proffered race-neutral reasons as insufficient and pretextual, and found purposeful discrimination.
- The court granted plaintiff’s challenge and directed corrective measures to ensure jury selection continued in a nondiscriminatory manner, including further on-the-record examination of available minority venirepersons and steps to cure the effects of the improper strikes.

## Legal Principles

- A litigant may not use peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on account of race in either criminal or civil trials.
- In civil cases, the exercise of peremptory challenges is treated as state action because it operates through the court’s authority and the publicly administered jury-selection system.
- Batson/Edmonson analysis proceeds in three steps: (1) opponent shows an inference of discrimination; (2) proponent offers race-neutral reasons; (3) court determines whether purposeful discrimination occurred, including whether reasons are pretextual.
- A stark pattern of strikes—such as removing every examined minority venireperson—can establish the prima facie showing without direct evidence of racial animus.
- When discrimination is found, the trial court must take effective corrective action to prevent the jury from being selected through unconstitutional exclusion.

## Conclusion

The court applied Batson and Edmonson to civil jury selection, found that defendants’ peremptory strikes intentionally excluded minority venirepersons, rejected defendants’ explanations as pretextual, and ordered remedial steps to continue jury selection in compliance with equal-protection requirements.


Siriano v. Beth Israel Hosp., 161 Misc. 2d 512, 614 N.Y.S.2d 700 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1994)