to be awarded. When a jury returns a verdict based on special interrogatories, “error with respect to one issue will ordinarily not constitute reason to retry an issue that was separately determined.” Crane v. Consol. Rail Corp., 731 F.2d 1042, 1050 (2d Cir.1984); see also Aker-manis v. Sear-Land Serv., Inc., 688 F.2d 898, 906 (2d Cir.1982) (permitting a partial retrial on “distinct issues” if “detailed interrogatories” on a verdict form allow the court to determine “whether a jury’s award of damages and its finding of liability are sufficiently separate to allow a partial new trial”); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)(1) (“The court may ... grant a new trial on all or some of the issues.... ”); Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494, 499, 51 S.Ct. 513, 75 L.Ed. 1188 (1931) (<HOLDING>); Crockett v. Long Island R.R., 65 F.3d 274,
holding that issue of attorneys fees should be retried if damages awarded are reduced on appeal and appellate court can not be reasonably certain that trial court was not influenced by erroneous damages award holding that when a trial court determines that the amount of damages awarded by a jury is excessive the court may either suggest remittitur or grant a new trial on the issue of damages recognizing that although the fourth circuit has not yet addressed the issue partial discharge may be granted to the extent that it would be an undue hardship for the debtor to have to pay that portion of the loan that is to be discharged recognizing that the venire may be separately sworn recognizing that a partial new trial may be granted if the issue of damages is so distinct and independent  that it can be separately tried