Opposition to Additur or Remittitur After First Trial Can Not Be Appealed After Second Trial
In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals dealt with several issues in a multi-million dollar medical malpractice suit that had already gone through two trials. One of the issues was whether opposition to additur or remittitur with respect to the verdict in an intitial trial must be raised on appeal before retrying the case. In holding that the issue is not appealable after a second trial, the Court of Appeals wrote:
The Appellate Division regularly reviews, and sometimes accepts, arguments that an additur or remittitur granted by a trial court is either excessive or inadequate … . In no such case, as far as we are aware, has the appellant’s claim been held unpreserved for failure to specify a more reasonable increase or decrease in the damages, and imposing such a requirement would serve little purpose.
But a party that wants to challenge the amount of an additur or remittitur on appeal must do so before a new trial takes place. The chief benefit of the devices known as additur and remittitur is that, when they are accepted, they spare the parties and the court the burden and expense of a second trial. Deferring appellate review until after the second trial destroys that benefit. Such a deferral also gives the party opposing the additur or remittitur an unjustified tactical advantage: if successful on appeal, that party can choose whether to accept the new amount of the additur or remittitur, already knowing what the second jury has awarded. * * *
We see no unfairness in requiring a party dissatisfied with the size of an additur or remittitur to obtain appellate review before any retrial. If there is not time for such review, and neither the trial court nor the appellate court will grant a stay, the party’s remedy is to reject the proffered stipulation and retry the case. Defendants here pursued that remedy. They are not entitled to another remedy because they are displeased with the result. Oakes … v Patel, 51, CtApp, 4-2-13
