In Oakes v. Patel,1 decided April 2, 2013, the Court of Appeals held that a party who wants to challenge on appeal a trial court’s post-verdict order conditionally increasing or reducing the amount of damages awarded by a jury (an additur or remittitur) must do so before a new trial on damages takes place. The court in Oakes also held that an order granting or denying a motion to amend "necessarily affects the final judgment," so as to qualify for review under CPLR 5501(a)(1), when it relates to a proposed new pleading that contains a new cause of action or defense.
Oakes involved a medical malpractice action in which the jury awarded approximately $4 million for certain elements of damages. The plaintiffs filed a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the awards for the relevant elements were inadequate. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an additur, and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages unless the defendants stipulated to an increased award of $17.4 million for these elements. The defendants refused to so stipulate.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
