Sanjeev Lath v. Oakbrook Condominium Owners' Association & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0032, Sanjeev Lath v. Oakbrook
Condominium Owners’ Association & a., the court on November
20, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.

The plaintiff, Sanjeev Lath, appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Brown, J.) entering judgment for the defendants, Oak Brook Condominium
Owners’ Association, Warren Mills, Vickie Grandmaison, Dorothy Vachon, and
Scott Sample, following a jury trial and verdict in the defendants’ favor. The
plaintiff asserted claims for intrusion upon seclusion, assault and battery,
negligent supervision, and trespass. He sought damages for mental and
emotional distress. He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) admitting
evidence of his medical history, including illegal drug use; (2) denying his
request to introduce deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony; and (3)
denying his requests to introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior assault
conviction and a judge’s alleged comments regarding the defendant in a
separate case. The plaintiff also argues that certain jurors were biased.

It is a long-standing rule that parties may not have judicial review of
matters that were not properly raised in the trial court. Thompson v. D’Errico,
163 N.H. 20, 22 (2011). It is the burden of the appealing party, here the
plaintiff, to provide this court with a record sufficient to decide his issues on
appeal, as well as to demonstrate that he raised his issues before the trial
court. Bean v. Red Oak Prop. Mgmt., 151 N.H. 248, 250 (2004). We review a
trial court’s decisions on the admissibility of evidence for an unsustainable
exercise of discretion. Lynn v. Wentworth By The Sea Master Ass’n, 169 N.H.
77, 82 (2016). Under this standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the
trial court’s rulings were clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of
his case. Id.

The record shows that the plaintiff did not raise his claim of juror bias at
trial, and that he did not object to the discussion of his illegal drug use during
attorney-conducted voir dire. During his opening statement, the plaintiff
admitted to illegal drug use, but asserted that he had recovered. The trial
court ruled that the evidence of the plaintiff’s drug use was relevant to his
claim for damages.
 The court also ruled that defendant Scott Sample’s conviction was not
relevant to the negligent supervision claim because there was no evidence that
the employer was aware of it, and because the crime was not a felony, did not
involve a dishonest act or false statement, and was more than ten years old.
See N.H. R. Ev. 609. The court further ruled that the alleged judicial comment
was not admissible because it was not a factual finding in an adjudicatory
order. See N.H. R. Ev. 803(8). In addition, the court ruled that the plaintiff
had failed to demonstrate the unavailability of his witnesses for trial. See N.H.
R. Ev. 804(a)(5). Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the
plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s rulings were clearly
untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. See Lynn, 169 N.H. at
82.

Affirmed.

Lynn, C.J., and Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2