[brief] The discrete legal question is whether Burt v. West Jersey Health Systems, 339 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 2001) applied to [...]’s crossclaims against [...], in light of plaintiffs’ failure to timely join [...] as a direct defendant.  Subsumed therein is whether, even if assuming that plaintiffs were correct on their position that Burt has since been abrogated, the trial court could properly change course and adopt the plaintiffs’ position after the trial was completed, when it was too late for [...] to take any appropriate action in response to that reconsideration decision.  In *Burt*, this Court held that, in the context of a medical negligence claim, if co-defendants are invulnerable to claims by the plaintiff through no fault of the remaining defendants, those remaining defendants are not liable for the amount of damages the jury allocates to those co-defendants, *even* if the remaining defendants are found to be more than 60% at fault.  That is, this Court recognized a significant exception to joint and several liability under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.3(a) in those circumstances where the plaintiff fails to properly preserve the ability to recover against certain defendants.  The plaintiffs failed to timely assert claims against [...] and [...], the radiologist and hospitalist, respectively.  Thus, they successfully moved for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims on the statute of limitations grounds.  [...] moved to protect his rights and filed a motion to have these defendants treated as *Burt* defendants, such that any verdict would be molded to reduce their allocated share of liability.  In 2017, the trial judge specifically granted that motion.  That ruling remained *unchanged* between 2017 and trial in December 2022.  In fact, it was *reiterated* in 2018 and 2022.  At the commencement of trial, plaintiffs’ counsel orally renewed his disagreement with the *Burt* defendant characterization, seeking reconsideration and, if necessary, an adjournment of the trial so that those non-parties could be re-joined into the case as active defendants.  The trial court carefully considered the request and denied it.  The jury returned a verdict finding [...] 60% responsible and [...], a Burt defendant, 40% responsible for plaintiffs’ damages.  Consistent with Burt, [...] sought a molding of the judgment to reflect a 40% reduction, while plaintiffs submitted, in effect, a second reconsideration request, post-verdict, in the form a judgment order abrogating Burt status and imposing 100% of the judgment on [...].  At this point, long after the verdict and the completion of argument on [...]’s post-trial motions, the trial court reversed course and adopted plaintiff’s position that Burt actually does not apply.  This was akin to changing the rules of the game after the buzzer sounds so as to alter the winner.  [...] had the right to be aware of the trial court’s position in this regard when evaluating both his trial strategy and whether or not the case should be settled.  Instead, the trial court specifically ruled that the 2017 order remained in effect, and that [...] was a Burt defendant at the time trial commenced.  Reversing this framework only in the context of a post-trial judgment order is manifestly untenable.  Thus, the February 28, 2023 judgment must be reversed.