Thomas R Newman

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

July 06, 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, examine a recent decision in which the Fourth Department reaffirmed the often-overlooked corollary to CPLR 5701 that "an appeal from a nonfinal order or intermediate order does not bring up for review prior nonfinal orders."

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

9 minute read

March 05, 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, review the harmless error doctrine, judicial recognition that "[a]bsolute perfection in trials will not be attained so long as human beings conduct them."

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

13 minute read

April 28, 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 the Appellate Division, Second Department, recently addressed the issue of the appealability of an order deciding a pretrial motion in limine. The court held that an order "made in advance of trial which merely determine[s] the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling," but "an order which limits the scope of issues to be tried is appealable."

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

8 minute read

October 06, 2004 | 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 civil action, when the Appellate Division has ruled against you (and you have not garnered two dissents in your favor on a question of law), CPLR5602[a] provides two alternate ways by which you may seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from a final order or judgment of the Appellate Division.

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

11 minute read

October 14, 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, review the effects of a relevant change in the law during the pendency of an appeal, after the time to appeal an order called into question has expired but before the case has been finally resolved, and after a judgment is entered and no appeal is pending.

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

10 minute read

April 05, 2006 | 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 concepts of "appealability" and "reviewability" are different, especially in Court of Appeals practice. With that in mind, they review a case where in which a single Judge of the Court of Appeals granted the appellant's motion for leave to appeal, thereby satisfying the appealability criterion.

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

10 minute read

November 01, 2006 | 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 no lower court may take any action inconsistent with the remittitur of the Court of Appeals. When all that remains to be done is a ministerial act, it is error for the lower courts to grant a motion to vacate the judgment and for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence or any other theory that an imaginative attorney may devise to forestall the inevitable.

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

8 minute read

April 18, 2003 | Law.com

While the U.S. Supreme Court in State Farm pointedly declined the opportunity to set an absolute constitutional limit on punitive damage awards, its holding that "single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process," and in some cases a punitive award should not exceed a compensatory award at all, provides the clearest guidance to date concerning the permissible size of punitive damages.

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

11 minute read

October 04, 2006 | 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 U.S. Supreme Court will consider later this month whether a jury may award punitive damages to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties and whether an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible can override the "ratio" guidepost for determining whether a punitive award is so excessive as to violate due process.

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

13 minute read