On September 3, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2026 NY Slip Op. 05231, holding that a court erred in reinstating claims rejected by a jury, explaining:
Defendants are not entitled to reinstatement of their counterclaims, which were each unequivocally rejected by the jury after a lengthy trial. Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a jury verdict, or order a new trial, where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, or in the interest of justice. In making this determination, the court must proceed with caution, because in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict. Thus, a verdict should only be set aside if the evidence is so in favor of the moving party that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence, or in the interests of justice due to errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise.
Defendants did not move to set aside the jury’s verdict on the counterclaims based on an argument that it contradicted a fair interpretation of the evidence or that they were deprived of a fair trial. Rather, defendants contend that the counterclaims are so inextricably interwoven with plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim that they, too, must be retried. This argument is unavailing and has no support in the CPLR or case law, as the concept of inextricably interwoven claims is generally applied in personal injury cases and not in breach of contract or employment cases, and the cases cited do not compel affirmance under these circumstances. Indeed, in Mercado, the court suggested that even in the personal injury context overlapping facts alone are insufficient to require a new trial of claims properly decided by a jury.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).