Steven J Ahmuty Jr

May 04, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. write that the Second Circuit's decision instructing the district court to confirm an arbitration award suspending New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for four games serves as a reminder of the very limited scope of judicial review of arbitration awards.

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

21 minute read

March 01, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. write: Amicus curiae means "friend of the court." Friends try to help, not burden, each other. A persuasive amicus curiae brief can be an effective complement to the brief of a party and can assist the court in deciding issues that have potential ramifications beyond the matter at hand.

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

10 minute read

January 06, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. write: Seasoned appellate practitioners understand that, to obtain a discretionary stay, the appellant generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal, irreparable harm to the appellant absent a stay, and a lack of prejudice to the respondent if a stay were to be granted. But it is difficult to know how courts balance these factors. A recent Third Circuit decision provides a rare glimpse into an appellate court's decision-making process on a stay application

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

9 minute read

January 05, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. write: Seasoned appellate practitioners understand that, to obtain a discretionary stay, the appellant generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal, irreparable harm to the appellant absent a stay, and a lack of prejudice to the respondent if a stay were to be granted. But it is difficult to know how courts balance these factors. A recent Third Circuit decision provides a rare glimpse into an appellate court's decision-making process on a stay application

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

9 minute read

November 04, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty write: Ever since 'Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins', when a case is in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, all questions of substantive law must be decided according to the governing state law. At times, however, the law of the state may be unclear or nonexistent on the particular issue before the federal court.

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

12 minute read

November 03, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty write: Ever since 'Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins', when a case is in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, all questions of substantive law must be decided according to the governing state law. At times, however, the law of the state may be unclear or nonexistent on the particular issue before the federal court.

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

12 minute read

September 02, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. review some of the requirements for preservation within each stage: pre-trial, during trial and post-verdict.

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

11 minute read

September 01, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. review some of the requirements for preservation within each stage: pre-trial, during trial and post-verdict.

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

11 minute read

July 01, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. write: With some nuances, there are two basic standards of appellate review: de novo (literally, "from the beginning") and deferential. In reviewing the record, appellate counsel should search for legal errors subject to de novo review since such errors, if outcome determinative, generally are the best candidates for a reversal.

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

9 minute read

June 30, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr. write: With some nuances, there are two basic standards of appellate review: de novo (literally, "from the beginning") and deferential. In reviewing the record, appellate counsel should search for legal errors subject to de novo review since such errors, if outcome determinative, generally are the best candidates for a reversal.

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

9 minute read