Who May Raise Arguments Deemed Permissible for First Time on Appeal?
The essence of this article is who may raise such sanctioned arguments first time on appeal, the appellant, the respondent, or both? We digress from the answer to this question to examine several sanctioned categories.
December 01, 2022 at 11:00 AM
15 minute read
Preservation is the foundation of appellate review. Generally, an argument not presented to the court below may not be raised on appeal. "[I]t is settled that a ruling on an application must be reviewed in respect of the arguments made before the motion court and not on the basis of some novel contention." Wald v. Marine Midland Bus. Loans, 270 A.D.2d 73, 75 (1st Dept. 2000). "[T]he requirement of preservation is not simply a meaningless technical barrier to review." Wilson v. Galicia Contr. & Restoration, 10 N.Y.3d 827, 829 (2008). "The very theory and constitution of a court of appellate jurisdiction only is the correction of errors which a court below may have committed; and a court below cannot be said to have committed an error when their judgment was never called into exercise, and the points of law were never taken into consideration but was abandoned by the acquiescence or default of the party who raised it." Flake v. Van Wagenen, 54 N.Y. 25, 27 (1873). "It is, indeed, a rule, that questions not raised at the trial court, which might have been obviated by the action of the court then, or by that of the other party, will not be heard on appeal as ground of error." Telaro v. Telaro, 25 N.Y.2d 433, 438 (1969). However, there are exceptions to this this rule which permit appellate courts to hear specific categories of arguments first time on appeal, a random sampling of which follows. See E. Scheinberg, The New York Civil Appellate Citator, NYSBA, 2d ed, 2022.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTies Go in Favor of Voters: NY Court of Appeals Upholds 2021 Canvassing Law
Oved & Oved Loses Bid to Unmask Author of Bad Firm Review Online
NY's Top Court Mulls Whether State Can Investigate Fired Catholic Priest's Bias Claim
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 19 Attorneys Sanctioned in Texas
- 2Unpaid Real Estate Taxes; License To Enter Adjoining Property: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 3Baker McKenzie Builds on AI Foundation, Crafting Tools to Help Lawyers Work 'Better, Smarter'
- 4Paul Weiss, Trailblazer for U.S. Firms in China, to Close Beijing Office
- 5Formal Charges Filed Against Judge Accused of Helping Defendant Escape ICE Detention
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250