Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

NYCAL Punitive Damages in Limbo

By Jill Berry & Paul A. Scrudato on July 10, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
iStock_000038933620_Large

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, issued its decision yesterday on the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) punitive damages/Case Management Order (CMO) issue. While the Appellate Court held that Judge Heitler had the authority to modify the CMO to lift the deferral on punitive damages, it also found that she exceeded that authority to the extent that the order directs applications for a jury charge on punitive damages to be made at the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of trial. As a result, the long-term viability of punitive damages in NYCAL cases is back in question.

The Appellate Court found that the new procedure violates due process in that defendants must be given an opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare a defense with respect a punitive damages claim. The Appellate Court stated that Judge Heitler’s Order “deprives defendants of their rights to due process by leaving them guessing, until the close of evidence at trial, whether or not punitive damages will be sought.”

The decision stays the implementation of the Judge Heitler’s Order such that plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages until such procedural protocols are determined.

The Appellate Court modified Judge Heitler’s Order and remanded the matter to Judge Moulton to determine procedural protocols by which plaintiffs may apply for permission to charge the jury on punitive damages. The decision stays the implementation of the Judge Heitler’s Order such that plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages until such procedural protocols are determined. Notably, the Court further stated that “this decision does not preclude [Judge Moulton], after consultation with the parties, from reconsidering other aspects of the April Order, including the determination whether to permit claims for punitive damages under the CMO, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, either upon application or at its own instance.”

The Appellate Court’s opinion can be found here.

Photo of Jill Berry Jill Berry

Jill Berry represents companies facing product liability and mass tort risk in some of the most dangerous jurisdictions for defendants in the United States. Jill is skilled at negotiating complex agreements to control risk, and participates in joint defense initiatives that shape mass…

Jill Berry represents companies facing product liability and mass tort risk in some of the most dangerous jurisdictions for defendants in the United States. Jill is skilled at negotiating complex agreements to control risk, and participates in joint defense initiatives that shape mass tort litigation dockets.

Read more about Jill BerryEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Product Liability & Mass Torts Blog
  • Organization:
    ArentFox Schiff LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo