Steven J Ahmuty Jr

October 07, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, discuss ineffective appellate counsel representation, a topic on which the Court of Appeals recently solicited amicus curiae briefs for a criminal case in which it granted leave to appeal, and People v. Turner, a case where appellate counsel failed to put forth either a statute of limitations defense or an ineffective assistance argument based on trial counsel's failure to do the same.

By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr.

9 minute read

September 07, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, write that Associate Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt has embarked on a project aimed at telling us far more about the lives and personalities of the 105 men and women who, as Judges of the Court of Appeals since its formation in 1847, played a role in shaping the law of New York.

By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

12 minute read

April 01, 2002 | New York Law Journal

A s a general rule, if an issue is to be raised on appeal as a ground for modification or reversal of the order or judgment below, it must first have been raised in the trial court and preserved for appellate review.

By Thomas R. Newman And Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

9 minute read

December 05, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, write that the writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal and the Second Circuit has expressed its "special reluctance" to grant such a remedy.

By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

8 minute read

March 02, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, write that although the Appellate Division has inherent power to consider a point raised for the first time on appeal in "the interest of justice," it rarely exercises that discretion. A recent decision illustrates the importance of preservation.

By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

9 minute read

March 04, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Thomas R. Newman And Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

11 minute read

May 07, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr, a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, write that in a recent medical malpractice action brought on behalf of a severely brain-damaged infant, which was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reminds us that all is not necessarily lost merely because a trial error was not saved for review by a timely objection.

By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

9 minute read

April 04, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, write that subtle distinction between taking into account third-party harm in relation to the "reprehensibility" of the defendant's conduct, which is permitted, and actually punishing the defendant for having caused harm to nonparties, which is not, should be a fertile ground for litigation in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision Philip Morris.

By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

12 minute read

March 01, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, examine decisions involving the availability of relief to nonappealing parties.

By Thomas R. Newman And Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

12 minute read

November 04, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, write: In discretionary matters, the Appellate Division's scope of review is co-extensive with that of the trial court, and it may exercise its discretion independently. At times, however, there appear to be no discernable standards that would lend consistency and predictability to the Appellate Division's exercise of its discretion, and similar fact situations do not always result in identical outcomes.

By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.

9 minute read