Opinion
C.A. No. 05C-01-222 MJB.
December 14, 2007.
Bernard Van Ogtrop, Esquire Seitz Van Ogtrop Green, P.A. Wilmington, DE.
Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esquire, Reger Rizzo Kavulich Darnall LLP, Wilmington, DE.
Counsel:
The Court is in receipt of defendant's Application for an Interlocutory Appeal to the Supreme Court and plaintiff's response thereto. After reviewing the party's submissions, the applicable legal standards and the Court's previous rulings in this case, I am satisfied that defendant's application should be refused.
The decision to grant a new trial is a discretionary function of this Court, which has "the unique vantage point . . . in the evaluation of evidence." Kincaid v. Poston, 518 A.2d 91 (Del. 1986). Further, applications for an interlocutory appeal are "granted only in exceptional circumstances." In re Asbestos Litigation, 906 A.2d 806 (Del. 2006).
This Court's decision to grant a new trial was the result of its "unique vantage point," and the Court remains convinced that plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. Accordingly, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42(c)(iii), the Court refuses to certify this matter for an interlocutory appeal.