Court of Appeals and Appellate Practice
Brought to you free by Record Press
Patrick M. Connors, professor at Albany Law School, writes that while the Court of Appeals issued many civil practice holdings of importance to litigators, there were also opinions relevant to transactional lawyers in several appeals involving application of the CPLR in contractual disputes.
Paul Shechtman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder, writes that despite the New York Court of Appeals not having its full complement of seven members from late November to early June, it issued 89 opinions in criminal law cases, of which many are noteworthy.
Evan H. Krinick, co-managing partner of Rivkin Radler, writes: The past term's significant insurance law decisions by the New York Court of Appeals resolved a variety of issues that will alter the practice of insurance law in important ways. But one decision in particular, in which the court evaluated the consequences to an insurance carrier of its breach of the duty to defend its insured, will surely be one of the most widely discussed and debated insurance law decisions rendered by the court in recent years.
Jeffrey S. Lichtman and Richard A. Menchini, partners at O'Hare Parnagian, write that three decisions from the recent term of the New York Court of Appeals clarified the hazy boundaries of tort duties, and each decision curtailed defendants' liability for commission of alleged tortious acts.
E. Leo Milonas and Frederick A. Brodie of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman write: Appealing a sanctions order presents unique considerations that make the exercise different from an appeal on the merits. Sanctioned parties seeking to cleanse their wounds on appeal should heed strategic suggestions.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partners Allyson N. Ho and Kelly A. Moore write that there are three particularly important differences between trial and appellate courts: the different roles played by trial and appellate courts in our system of justice; the various time constraints under which trial and appellate courts typically operate; and the contrasting composition of trial and appellate courts.
Anthony Viola and Andre Cizmarik of Edwards Wildman Palmer write: Parties looking to evaluate their exposure to prejudgment and post-judgment interest must carefully consider what has transpired in their case to determine when judgment was meaningfully ascertained and supported by evidence.
Proskauer Rose partners Mark Harris and Mark Batten write: Rule 23(f) gives the federal courts of appeals discretion to provide interlocutory review of class certification decisions, while 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) allows for review of decisions on collective action status. Lawyers need to understand the rigorous rules governing these appeals under both Rule 23(f) and §1292(b).