AGAINST DEFENDANTS ZARICZNYJ AND HEINTZ ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, ARE REPETITIVE AND EXCESSIVE.
II. THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS.
III. THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS AND AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS ARE EXCESSIVE AND REPETITIVE.
IV. THE JURY VERDICTS FOR BOTH COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CONNIE AND ROSSIE HAYES AND AGAINST MAGDALEN ZARICZNYJ AND RONALD HEINTZ WERE EXCESSIVE AND WERE INFLUENCED BY PASSION OR PREJUDICE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE REDUCED.
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DEFENDANT'S COMBINED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT, BASED UPON THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A COMPENSATORY DAMAGE AWARD FOR COUNT FOUR, INTERFERENCE WITH THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THE PREMISES BASED UPON INTERFERENCE WITH A LEASE AGREEMENT.
VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DAMAGES FOR ATTORNEY FEES IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, WHEN THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THE AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.