A Jury Verdict: Now What?
There are numerous post-trial motions that one can utilize under the CPLR when faced with an unfavorable verdict.
December 13, 2019 at 02:20 PM
11 minute read
There are numerous post-trial motions that one can utilize under the CPLR when faced with an unfavorable verdict. The following are examples of the different types of post-trial motions that are available to litigants after trial.
Post-Trial Motions, Generally
Once the jury has rendered its verdict, the parties must immediately consider post-trial motions. Post-trial motions are governed by CPLR Article 44. After a jury verdict, a court can set aside the verdict and either: (1) direct entry of judgment in favor of any party as a matter of law; or (2) order a new trial.
CPLR 4404(a) states that "[a]fter a trial of a cause of action or issue triable of right by a jury … the court may set aside a verdict [or] it may order a new trial of a cause of action … where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, in the interest of justice or where the jury cannot agree being kept together for as long as is deemed reasonable by the court."
How Many Motions?
After the jury is excused and the verdict or decision has been rendered, a party can make an oral motion. Additionally, a party is also entitled to make only one written motion. CPLR 4406 states, "in addition to motions made orally immediately after decision, verdict or discharge of the jury, there shall be only one motion under this article." Further, a party must "raise by motion or by demand under rule 2215 every ground for post-trial relief available."
When Does the Post-Trial Motion Have To Be Made?
Pursuant to CPLR 4405, a motion "shall be made before the judge who presided at the trial within fifteen days after decision, verdict or discharge of the jury." In the event that the motion is made after the fifteen days, it is within the court's power to exercise discretion when a parties' motion is untimely upon showing of good cause.
A court can direct a briefing schedule or it is not uncommon for a party to request additional time to make a written motion. Additional time can allow a party to obtain the full transcript, review evidence and exhibits and to cite to the record in support of its motion.
Inconsistent Verdict
An inconsistent verdict occurs when "the jury's verdict on one claim negates an element of another cause of action." Post-Trial Motion for Judgment or a New Trial in New York State Supreme Court, Practical Law Practice Note w-006-3862. A party challenging the verdict as inconsistent must raise the challenge before the jury is discharged and cannot be a ground for dismissal upon a written post-trial motion. For example, in Palmer v. Walters, the jury "apportioned fault 25%" against plaintiff after previously finding that plaintiff's negligence was not a substantial factor. Accordingly, the court ordered a new trial because the jury's verdict was internally inconsistent." 29 A.D.3d 552 (2005).
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.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
- 5Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
Who Got The Work
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight has entered an appearance for Rafael Badalov in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed July 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Lee Law on behalf of Otter Products LLC, accuses the defendant of selling counterfeit phone cases and accessories bearing the plaintiff's 'OtterBox' trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nina R. Morrison, is 1:24-cv-05214, Otter Products, LLC v. Badalov et al.
Who Got The Work
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Benjamin Hershkowitz, Richard W. Mark and Casey J. McCracken and R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton and Cara S. Donels have entered appearances for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. and MidAmerican Energy Co., respectively, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 17 in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., asserts six patents related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher, is 4:24-cv-00243, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.
Who Got The Work
Michael J. Hickey and Michael L. Jente of Lewis Rice LLC have stepped in to represent Tidal Wave Management in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 18 in Missouri Western District Court by Husch Blackwell on behalf of Waterway Gas & Wash Co., accuses the defendant of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Clean Car Club' mark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., is 4:24-cv-00471, Waterway Gas & Wash Company v. Tidal Wave Management LLC.
Who Got The Work
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz partners Lauren M. Kofke and William Savitt have stepped in to represent CVS Health and and its top officials in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Chaya Sara Kaufmann, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that they used misleading forecasts to set premium plans which overstated the profitability of the company's health care benefits segment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06595, Kaufmann v. Lynch et al.
Who Got The Work
Robert L. Wallan from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has entered an appearance for Findlay Management Group in a pending complaint for declaratory judgment. The complaint, filed on Aug. 8 in Nevada District Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Skarzynski Marick & Black on behalf of Houston Casualty Co., seeks to declare that no insurance policy exists between Houston Casualty and Findlay due to there not being an adequate form of delivery and claims that if delivery was substantiated it is rescinded based on material omissions and misrepresentations. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, is 2:24-cv-01459, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group.
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