Honora ble J ed S. Rakoff, of

the United States District Court for the Southern * District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. 08-3 430 -cv Elys e v. Brid gesid e Inc. UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
RULI NGS BY SU M M ARY ORDER D O NO T HAV E PR ECEDENTI AL EF FE CT. CI TATI ON TO S UM M ARY OR D E R S F I L E D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S GO VE R N E D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E OF AP PE LLATE P ROCEDURE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COURT’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER I N A D OCUM ENT F I LED W I TH TH I S COURT, A PA RTY M US T CI TE EI THER THE FEDERAL AP PE NDI X O R AN ELECTRONI C DATABASE ( W I TH THE NO TATI ON “ SU M M ARY ORDER” ) . A PA RTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COPY OF I T O N ANY P ARTY N OT REPRES ENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 1 day of st Marc h, two thousand ten. PRES ENT: AMALYA L . KEARSE,

P E T E R W
. H A LL, Circuit Judges , J ED S . RAKO FF, *

District Judge.

_______________________________________________ Macse n Ely se, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. No. 08-3430-c v Br idge side Incorpor ated, a New Y ork Company , Peter B r un e tt i , E dk i n s Aut o S a l e s , In c . , a N e wY o r k C o mp any, Defendants-A

ppellees

.

______________________________________________ For Appellant: MACSEN EL YSE, pro s e , Roselle, N e wJ e r s e y.2

F o r Ap p e l l e e s : R O B E R T S G A R LA T O ( D A V ID METH, on the brief

) Slater a nd Sga rlato, P.C., St aten I sland, N.Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of New Y ork (Cog an, J

.). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDG ED AND DECREED that th e or de r o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiff-Appellant Mac sen Ely se, pro s e , appea ls from a June 2008 decision of the district court, deny

ing his motions to alter or amend the judg ment, pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 59 (e ), or

fo r a pa rt ia l ne w tri a l on

the iss ue of

dama g e s, purs ua

nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civil P roce dure 59( a). We a ssume the par ties’ fa miliarity with the fac ts and proce dural history of the c ase. Ely se principa lly

challeng es the district cour t’s denial of his motion for either (1) a n
a lte ratio n o r a

me ndme nt o f t

he jud g me nt t o in c re a se the dama g e s a wa rd fr om $ 18 ,0 00 .0 0 to $227,057.96, or (2) a par

tial new trial on the issue of damag es. His motion to increase the dama g e s awa

rd wa s p ro pe rl y

de nie d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt

on the g ro un d th at a dd itur i s constitutionally

impermissible. See, e .g., Dimick v . Schiedt , 293 U.S. 474, 486-88 (1935); Ge nti lev . Co un ty

of S uff olk , 9 26 F .2 d 1 42 , 1 55 (2 d Ci r. 19 91 ); Crane v. Consol. Rail Cor p. , 731 F.2d 1042, 1046 ( 2d Cir.), cert. de nied, 469 U.S. 854 (1984). Fur ther, a lthough Ely se ar gues that his motions shoul d have be en grante d beca use “the damag es ver dict g oes ag ainst the clea r we ight of

the evidenc e,” the weight of the evide nce is a n argument to the fac tfinder, not a ground for reve rsal on appe al, see , e.g. , Ceraso v. Motiva En te rp ris es, LLC , 3 26 F .3 d 3 03 , 3 16 -1 7 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 3) ; Piesco v . Koch , 12 F.3d 332, 344- 45 (2d Cir . 1 99 3) ; Schwartz v. Capital L iquidators, Inc. , 984 F.2d 53, 54 ( 2d Cir. 1993). Thus, the3

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of

a ne w- tr ia l mo tio n th at w a s b a se d o n th e we ight o f t he e vid e nc e is g ener ally unrevie wable, see , e.g. , Haywood v. Koehle r , 78 F.3d 101, 104 ( 2d Cir. 1996); Sto ne wal l I

ns . Co . v . A sb esto s Claim s M gm t. C or p . , 7 3 F. 3 d

1 1 7 8 , 1 1 9 9 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 9 5 ), al th o u gh a denia l is reviewa

ble to the extent that the contention is that the district court applied the wrong leg al standar d, see , e.g. , Piesco , 12 F.3d at 344. The district cour

t is authorized to gra

nt a new tr ial based on the weight of the evide nce only if it determines that the jury ’s ver dict was “ seriously err oneous,” see , e.g. , id. at 344-45, or “a misca rriag e of justice,” So rlu c c o v . N. Y . Ci ty Po lic eDe

pt. , 971 F.2d 864, 875 ( 2d Cir. 1992) (qu o t at i o nm ark

o m i tt ed ) ( qu o t i n g Smith v. Lightning Bol t Prods. Inc. , 861 F.2d 363, 370 ( 2d Cir. 1988)). In makingits determination, howeve r, the c ourt must refr ain from invadingthe province of the jury

to evaluate the cr edibility of the witnesse s. See , e.g. , Tennant v. Peoria & P.U. Ry. Co. , 3 21 U. S. 2 9, 35 (1 94 4) ; Piesco , 12 F.3d at 345 (district court must “bea r[] in mind . . . that [w] here the re solution of the issues depend[s] on assessment of the cre dibilit y of the witnesses, it is proper f

or the c ourt to ref

rain fr om setting a side the ver dict and grantinga new tri al ” ( al t er at i o ni no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Me tro me dia Co. v . F ug az y , 983 F.2d 350, 363 ( 2d Cir. 19 92 )) ; Sorlucco , 971 F.2d at 875. We see no a

pplication of an e rrone ous leg al standar d or other e rror of law in this case , and the f indings of the district court pre cluded a ny possible conclusion that the jury ’s ver dict
c ou ld b e vie we d a s se ri ou sly e rr on e ou s o r a

mis c arr ia g e of

jus tic e . T he c ourt

fo un d th at E ly se essentially

soug ht “to rea

rgue the c redibility

of plaintiffs’ w itnesses”; that “the re w ere numerous bases upon whic h the jury could re fuse to ac cept the opinion of pla intiffs’ expert”; and that the
ve rd ic t “ wa s not

ag ainst the weight of the evide nce.” Mada Int’l Auto Auc tion, Inc. v. Bridge side4

Inc. , N o. 07 Civ . 2 86 (B MC) , 2 00 8 WL 24 14 79 9, at *2 (E .D .N .Y . Jun e 13 , 2 00 8) (e mph a sis added) . The de nials of Ely se’s motions to set aside the ver dict and for a new trial are thus not revie wable. Finally , to the extent that Appellant’s brief now challeng es the district cour t’s denial of

atto rn e y ’s fe e s, we are wi tho ut j ur isd ic tio n to re vie w that pa rt of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r b e c a us e Appellant did not specify in his noti ce of

appea l that he wished to appe al that portion of the district court’s orde r. See Fe d. R. App. P. 3(c)(1) (B ) (“ notice of a ppeal must . . . designate the judgme nt, order, or

part ther eof be ing a

ppeale d”); se eals o Ne w Ph on eCo. v . Ci ty of N e w York, 498 F.3d 127, 131 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holdingthat appellate jurisdiction “depends on whether the intent to appea l from [a] decision is clear on the f ace of, or c an be inf

err ed fr om, the notice[] of appe al”)

. We have r eviewe d Appellant’s r emainingarguments and find them to be without merit. For the re asons stated a

bove, the judgment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED.

F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk