Does a new trial order need to be affirmed as against law or against error in law?

being against the law and an error in law objected to at trial. "'In contrast to the grounds of insufficient evidence and excessive or inadequate damages, "the phrase 'against law' does not import a situation in which the court weighs the evidence and finds a balance against the verdict, as it does in considering the ground of insufficiency of the evidence." [Citation.] Because the "against law" ground is distinct from the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, a new trial order must be affirmed as against law even though that ground is not stated in the order or supported by a specification of reasons. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (Fergus v. Songer, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 567.) Accordingly, we examine whether a new trial was warranted because the verdict was against the law or the result of an error in law objected to at trial.