Case Name: Louise M. HARRIS, M.D., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Provident Companies, Inc., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-06
Citations: 110 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 03-7822
Parties: Louise M. HARRIS, M.D., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Provident Companies, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
Louise M. HARRIS, M.D., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant, Provident Companies, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7822.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Oct. 6, 2004.
Heather D. Diddel (Jean F. Gerbini, Melvin H. Osterman), Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, Albany, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.
Arthur J. Siegel, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Albany, NY, for Appellants.
PRESENT: MINER, CABRANES and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendants appeal from a final judgment following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee.
Defendants raise a number of challenges to the District Court's jury instructions and evidentiary rulings, as well as its ruling denying defendants' Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. We hold that none of these challenges rise to the level of reversible error.
We have considered all of defendants' claims on appeal and found them to be without merit. We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.