Opinion ID: 173907
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: In reviewing a district court's decision in a bench trial, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.  White v. White Rose Food, 237 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Cir.2001); accord Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir.2008). Under the clearly erroneous standard, there is a strong presumption in favor of a trial court's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. We will not upset a factual finding unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. White, 237 F.3d at 178 (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, in reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we review questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact de novo, McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 202, 204 (2d Cir.2007), and review a district court's factual findings for clear error, City of N.Y. v. Agni, 522 F.3d 279, 282 (2d Cir.2008). [C]onstruing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Mitchell v. Shane, 350 F.3d 39, 47 (2d Cir.2003), we may affirm only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). [A] fact is `material' if it `might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.' Mitchell, 350 F.3d at 47 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). A fact issue is `genuine' if `the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.' Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505). Finally, with respect to the district court's determination of damages, we review the legal question of the applicable damages measurement de novo. See Indu Craft, Inc. v. Bank of Baroda, 47 F.3d 490, 494 (2d Cir.1995). The question of the amount of recoverable damages is a question of fact, however, that we review for clear error. Lucente v. IBM Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 261 (2d Cir.2002) (quotation marks omitted).