Steven J Ahmuty Jr

January 02, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. write: A finding of prejudicial error will generally result in a reversal of the judgment and a new trial on all issues unless the appellate court specifically limits the scope of the retrial. Where the appellate court finds error affecting the determination of only some of the issues, however, it may order a retrial solely as to those issues, saving the parties and the trial court the time, expense and trouble of retrying issues that were properly decided.

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

9 minute read

November 08, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. write: The CPLR is very liberal in allowing appeals as of right to be taken to the Appellate Division. However, this extremely broad right to appeal is limited by CPLR §5511 and available only to an “aggrieved party” who “may appeal from any appealable judgment or order except one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party.”

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

8 minute read

September 05, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 'Microsoft v. Baker', which resolved an important jurisdictional issue concerning class action procedure, holding that a federal court of appeals does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.

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

22 minute read

July 03, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Appellate Practice columnists Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. use two recent cases to remind practitioners that it cannot be counted a victory if a favorable verdict is set aside by the trial or appellate court after a lengthy trial and the case must be retried at considerable expense, loss of time and renewed mental and emotional strain on the injured party or his or her survivors—all because of counsel's avoidable error.

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

8 minute read

May 03, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Appellate Practice columnists Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. write: As Justice Felix Frankfurter aptly observed, "Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late." With certain limited exceptions, however, issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered as grounds for a reversal or modification.

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

17 minute read

March 03, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. write: In 'Hain v. Jamison', the Court of Appeals addressed two recurring jurisdictional issues in the context of summary judgment: the "finality" requirement and the availability of affirmative relief to an nonappealing party.

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

21 minute read

January 03, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. discuss appellate review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court. While CPLR §5501, Scope of Review, states in subsection (c) that "The appellate division shall review questions of law and questions of fact on an appeal from a judgment or order," it does not mention that court's power to review an exercise of discretion by the trial court. Nevertheless, the Appellate Division unquestionably possesses all of the powers of the Supreme Court. Its authority "is as broad as that of the trial court," and one often sees an Appellate Division decision and order (one paper) reversing or modifying an order or judgment of the Supreme Court "on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion."

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

24 minute read

November 01, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Appellate Practice Columnists Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. discuss filing a motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Such motions, they point out, are rarely granted. The Court of Appeals exclusively focuses on cases that present legal issues with broad precedential significance. The main objective is to persuade the court that the case presents questions of law that are "leaveworthy," i.e., sufficiently important to merit review, not simply to demonstrate that the Appellate Division's decision was erroneous.

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

18 minute read

September 06, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. review a recent decision that brings an important reprieve to any would be appellant whose prior appeal has been dismissed as untimely, provided a subsequent judgment or order raising the same issues is entered from which a separate timely appeal may be taken.

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

15 minute read

July 06, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. discuss the sometimes overlooked limitation on the very liberal right to appeal—the requirement that only an "aggrieved party or a person substituted for him [or her] may appeal from an appealable judgment or order except one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party."

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

18 minute read