Case Name: 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-Party-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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-30
Citations: 106 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 02-7791
Parties: 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.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 106
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.