In Civiello v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 208 Conn. 82, 544 A.2d 158 (1988), the plaintiff filed an acceptance of the remittitur reserving without prejudice the right to appeal from that order. After reviewing the legislative history of 52-228a, the Court concluded that "there is no indication that the statute was intended to remove the necessity of a new trial entirely or to permit a party to accept a remittitur or additur while also challenging its propriety." Id. at 84-85 n.3. The court reiterated its earlier conclusion that "an order of remittitur presents a plaintiff with a choice of two alternatives: The plaintiff is not compelled to remit the sum suggested by the trial court, but may elect either to submit to a new trial, or to seek, by an appeal to this court . . . to have the order of new trial reversed and judgment rendered for the full amount of the verdict." Id. at 85-86. The court found additional support for its determination in "a line of federal court decisions stretching back to 1889 holding that a plaintiff cannot, by accepting the order under protest, appeal the propriety of a remittitur order to which he has agreed. Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 429 U.S. 648 (1977)." Civiello v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., supra, 208 Conn. at 86.