Appealing When You Do Not Get the Relief You Sued For

The majority of the defendants in the cases we bring on our clients’ behalf decide settle our claims against them at some point before going to trial. In the minority of cases where we do go to trial, some of those settle before the jury issues a verdict on the issues of liability or the amount of damages. In the subset of trials which lead to a verdict, the injured client may “win,” but not get the full damages award sought. In situations like these, where a winning plaintiff is still not satisfied with the award, may he or she appeal?

Only an "Aggrieved Party" May Appeal

According to CPLR § 5511, only an "aggrieved," or losing party, may appeal from a court’s or jury’s decision. But what does it mean to be an “aggrieved party”? According to the leading case on the subject from New York’s highest court, “Generally, the party who has successfully obtained a judgment or order in his favor is not aggrieved by it,”1 which means that a winning party may not appeal. The court carved out a major exception though. “[T]he successful party may appeal or cross-appeal from a judgment or order in his favor if he is nevertheless prejudiced because it does not grant him complete relief. “2 So in the situation in the paragraph above, a winning party can still appeal if it did not obtain the full relief it requested.

The problem arises when a court issues a decision in a case in which there is more than one plaintiff or more than one defendant from. Sometimes, a court makes a decision against one party, but the court’s reasoning indirectly affects another party who is not directly affected by the decision.

For example, let’s say A sues B and C for injuries they allegedly caused A. Then C makes a cross-claim against co-defendant B for B’s “contribution” to A’s injuries.

What if the court dismisses A’s claim against B, but not against C. Can C appeal the court’s dismissal of A’s claim against B even though the court made no decision directly against C? In other words, is C “aggrieved,” by the dismissal of A’s claim against B, such that he or she could appeal the dismissal of A’s claim against B? C’s theory would be that the court’s dismissal of A’s claim against B harms C’s chances of recovering “contribution” from B later on, which should give C standing as an “aggrieved party” to challenge the court’s dismissal of A’s claim against B.

C’s reasoning here is the basis for a Second Department case called Stein v. Whitehead.3 Stein held that the granting of relief against a party is not its only basis for appeal. It held that even if a decision’s reasoning is against a party’s interest, even if no relief was granted against it directly, that party is also considered “aggrieved” for appeal purposes.4

Recent Development in the Law

On June 22, 2010, the Second Department issued a new decision in a case called Mixon v. TBV, Inc., backtracking on its 1972 Stein decision. It formally declared that a party is not considered “aggrieved,” for appeal purposes, based on a court’s reasoning alone. It will only be considered “aggrieved” if it grants actual relief against a party or grants less relief than the party sought.5

It said that there are two ways a party may be considered “aggrieved,” giving it the right to appeal.

1. “[A] person is aggrieved when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in part.”6
2. “[A] person is aggrieved when someone asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part.”

Based on the foregoing, we can now understand that in the “A v. B & C” case, C lacks standing to appeal a dismissal of A’s claim against B because the decision does not directly affect C. And if one sues and is granted less than the full relief he or she requested, an appeal is possible. On the other hand, if a decision only affects a party indirectly, he or she will not have standing to appeal because, at least in the Second Department, this party will not be considered an “aggrieved party.”

Contact Long Island Personal Injury lawyers, Rosenberg & Gluck

If you have been injured by someone, whether in an auto accident or in any other way, you can always call the personal injury expert trial and appeal attorneys at Rosenberg & Gluck. We are among the largest and most experienced personal injury firms in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. Personal injury is all we do. For a free initial consultation, contact us or call our office at 631-451-7900.

1 Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 544 (N.Y. 1983)
2 Id. at 545.
3 Stein v Whitehead, 40 AD2d 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 1972) (the Second Department includes Long Island).
4 Id. at 92.
5 Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 05521, *7 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 2010).
6 Id.