Thomas R Newman

December 31, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. write: The protection of the record needed to preserve your right to challenge asserted error at trial consists of much more than bobbing up and down during trial to voice objections, although it is certainly necessary that timely and appropriate objections be made.

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

9 minute read

November 06, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Appellate Practice columnists Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. examine several major provisions of the new uniform rules, including electronic filing requirements, filing deadlines for appellate submissions, and motion practice.

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

10 minute read

September 04, 2018 | New York Law Journal

The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to review questions of fact is severely curtailed by the New York State Constitution (art. 6, § 3[a]), and the court's primary role is its law-making function, to unify, clarify and pronounce the law for the state of New York.

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

9 minute read

July 03, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Appellate Practice columnists Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. discuss aggrievement in appellate standing.

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

2 minute read

May 01, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Appellate Practice columnists Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. discuss constitutional issues surrounding recovery of punitive damages.

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

10 minute read

March 06, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. write: A fundamental tenet of appellate practice is that the rights of the litigants are to be determined solely on the basis of materials contained between the covers of the record on appeal. With some rare exceptions discussed below, it is a serious breach of appellate decorum to refer to matters outside the record.

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

9 minute read

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 18, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In his Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman writes that a recent opinion in crane collapse litigation is to be complimented for describing in grisly detail horrific bodily injuries, which assist the trier of the facts in arriving at an award for conscious pain and suffering as the result of physical injuries based on a comparison of the award under scrutiny with recent cases involving comparable injuries. They are of no use in determining what is reasonable compensation for the "inconceivable" (the court's apt word) pre-impact terror that, it can be reasonably believed, both men must have felt.

By Thomas R. Newman

17 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