Case ID: f-appx_106/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PANIX PRODUCTIONS, LTD. and Panix of the U.S., Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Third-Party-Defendants-Appellants, Panos Eliades, Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. Lennox LEWIS and New Jersey Sports Productions, Inc., d/b/a Main Events Defendants-Third-Part y-Plaintiffs-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, Lennox Lewis Enterprises, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Shogun Securities Ltd., Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Milton CHWASKY, Richard Ashkens and Kyriacss Antoniou, Third-Party-Defendants-Counter-Defendants, John Does, 1-5, fictitious and Richard Roe Corporation 1-5, fictitious entities, Third-Party-Defendants.
    No. 02-7791.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 30, 2004.
    Jack M. Weiss (Randy M. Mastro, James L. Hallowell, Elizabeth A. Khan), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, New York, NY, for Appellants, of counsel.
    Judd Burstein (Peter B. Schalk, Matthew G. DeOreo), New York, NY, for Ap-pellees Lennox Lewis and Lennox Lewis Enterprises, Inc., of counsel.
    Laurence B. Orloff, Orloff, Lowenbach, Stifelman & Siegel, Roseland, NJ (Patrick C. English, Dines and English, L.L.C., Clifton, NJ), for Appellee Main Events, of counsel.
    PRESENT: CABRANES, STRAUB and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants challenge the order of the District Court denying their motion for a new trial. On appeal, Appellants argue that the District Court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a new trial on the bases that (1) an ex parte freeze order obtained against Appellants by Ap-pellee Lewis’s counsel denied them then-right to a fair trial by (a) restricting funds necessary to litigation of this matter, and (b) hindering pre-trial witness preparation; (2) witness interference on the part of Appellee Main Events’ counsel denied them their right to a fair trial; and (3) the jury returned inconsistent verdicts.

We have considered Appellants’ arguments and hold that they are all without merit. Accordingly, the order of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.