wages specifically in question three of the verdict they determined that there were no violations by the defendants your principal contention is that the jury rendered inconsistent verdict that's correct how how do we decide to add how can we decide whether the findings are inconsistent if we don't on the appendix page ninety six and ninety seven does give you that clarity which you need specifically asked a number of various questions concerning the wage claim and in there they say verdict in and of itself is shows that inconsistency and it can't be reconciled the reality is that in order to make a finding of a notice violation one of the items that the jury was tasked with in terms of the jury instructions is whether or not there was the whether or not there was complete and timely payment to the to the plaintiffs and in this case they clearly rendered inconsistent verdicts as follows one hundred new york law a verdict is inconsistent if it jury's finding on one claim ness of necessarily negates an element of another cause of claim violate you can have a wage claim violation without a notice violation but in this circumstance you can't have a notice violation unless you have a parallel wage violation that's exactly what one  references and the reason why it's there is because affectively no harm no foul if the employer if the employee did not receive the proper notice but yet he was still paid properly the  court the statute says the employer does not have to pay any type of notice by elation because the employee was not injured in any way shape or form and that's very clear from everything in the jury's verdict where they rendered zero wages to the employee and so when you have a situation one you have one minute ok when you have a situation when the employee when the when the jury comes back and says that there's absolutely no violation of wages that goes exactly to the affirmative defense of one hundred and ninety eight dollars and so there was a finding already that there were no for wages what odes it was timely complete untimely payment and that's why there shouldn't would and i and your honor i would submit that the jury's answer in number nine answers that question with respect to the affirmative defense there isn't any specific language in the verdict sheet that talks about the affirmative court i believe judge calibrate supply you have the voice correctly is hitting the nail right on the head you're doing burdens of proof and in one area of the verdict sheet the jury found that the plaintiff has not met its burden but in another area with regard to the page the notice in the wage that prevention act the jury has found that the bad the defendants had not met their burden now they were specifically charged in page one hundred and eighteen dollars the appendix talks about if you find that it depended established either of these apartment of defenses by a preponderance of the evidence then you cannot find the defendants liable for this claim or failure to provide adequate notice that this is part of the jury charge this is part of the jury charge that mr libby to agree to this is what was submitted to the jury and m it slightly changing the standard and the terms because also on page one hundred and eighteen dollars when the judge charged the jury on what the affirmative defense was its dependence may assert that they made a complete and timely payment of wages to the point that my my premise a little bit likes to say that the jury determined that the plaintiffs were owed no wages but that's not what the jury found the jury found that they had not met their burden and it's simply a matter of burden shifting here and when the jury finds that the plaintiffs had not met their burden in one area and the defendant had not met their burden in the other area it doesn't cancel each other out and in fact when my friend mr the buddha argues to the court that the jury actually made a finding that the plaintiffs were completely says that argument is easily disparaged because the jury made no such finding there is no finding to that case so i understand my permissible buddhas argument is frustrated but the jury found both sides did not  equally as frustrated with the jury's verdict but there is a basis to say we had not met our burden with proving that overtime was owed and they had not met their proof their burden that proving that that it is part and parcel of the claims to be provided here ignored you can't argue that it wasn't part of the complaint when you jointly submitted the document saying that these are the claims to be tried now parent that equally it is in the complaint  and various part wraps up the complaint and that is clear and that's exactly why the district court judge had no issue going letting it go forward and certainly no issue letting it go forward when the claim was jointly submitted in the joint pretrial order and  brown concluded as he did in his decision that there was testimony to contradict whether or not the plaintiffs were completely improperly paid the midst of the buddha has completely deprived this court of the opportunity to determine whether or not that information was fair and supported his position or if not support it i asked you for the transcript judge brown clearly said in his decision i asked him for the transcript do not assert any evidence without giving us the record to point to that  cause of action was not on the did not appeal any areas and the charging document he did not appeal any error is in the perfect form and the i respect he is claiming to appeal has he has not support one lick of evidence to support and the only evidence that we have that's not argued by either myself or my friend mr little ota is one line from the judge from george brown in his decision that says based upon his recollection the testimony contradicts that which mr the buddha is arguing lest there are any questions i'm not sure where i am with my time right now but i'd be happy to  and that's and that's a forty one and forty two dollars paragraphs one hundred and one two hundred and four but there's no reference at all to an allegation about a weekly notice and the plaintiffs are the masters of their complaint they need to allege those claims into ledge those damages in the complaint and they don't so we believe that they've waived any type of  and ninety three because it wasn't even in the complaint and it can't be remedied through some a p t o it's got to be actually in the complaint and the one minute there's been no no request for an amendment to the complaint or  anything of that nature so and just with respect to jumping back to the original issue you know our position is with respect to the jury's verdict that and i understand the court's distinction between the point is burden of proof and the defendant's burden of proof but ultimately the jury made the determination and it doesn't matter what the burden of proof is the fact is that they made a determination that there were no wage he's owed and so regardless of burden of proof they've made that factual finding and you can't have a notice claim when there's an ultimate lee determination that no wages are owed that's exactly what one hundred and ninety eight dollars is all about in terms of the from the fence and we would respectfully submit to this court that since the jury found no wages were owed and since there is an affirmative defense under one hundred and ninety eight dollars that the court reversed the jury's finding remand that back to the district court for a determination and enter judgment in favor of the defendant's thank you thank you the court