Opinion ID: 3183425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Crawford’s Post‐Trial Motions

Text: We now turn to Crawford’s Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions. Crawford failed to seek judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) before the case was submitted to the jury; thus, as the District Court correctly ruled, her motion could properly have been granted only if necessary “to prevent manifest injustice.” Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127, 153 (2d Cir. 2012). In reviewing the District Court’s denial, we must “give deference to all credibility determinations and reasonable inferences of the jury, and may not 12 weigh the credibility of witnesses or otherwise consider the weight of the evidence.” Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2010). We have no trouble concluding that Crawford’s Rule 50 arguments fail, and see no reason to rehash the preceding discussion of the relevant evidence. Suffice it to say that the testimony from Olivera, Sulner, and Decarolis, together with the loan documents, was more than adequate to warrant the jury in finding for defendants on the case’s central issue—that is, whether Crawford had actually signed a loan agreement at JFK. Crawford’s arguments to the contrary are jury arguments, and the jury was at liberty to reject them. Nor do we find any error in the District Court’s denial of Crawford’s Rule 59 motion for a new trial, a denial we review for “abuse of discretion.” Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 392 (2d Cir. 2005). A district court may grant a Rule 59 motion—even if some evidence supports the verdict—if the court determines, “in its independent judgment, [that] the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or [its] verdict is a miscarriage of justice.” Id. (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). But a trial judge should not be quick to revisit a jury’s credibility determinations, and must proceed “with caution and great restraint” when asked to do so. Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411, 418 (2d Cir. 2012). 13 In this case, Judge Wood properly heeded that admonition. As her opinion recognizes, “[t]he jury’s verdict suggests that the jury found Defendants’ witnesses . . . sufficiently credible, or Crawford’s witnesses sufficiently incredible, to warrant a verdict in Defendants’ favor.” Crawford, 2015 WL 1378882, at . Judge Wood found nothing in the record to warrant upsetting that verdict. Neither do we. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err in denying Crawford’s motion for a new trial.