Opinion ID: 786706
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Carriere's Procedural Default

Text: 85 In addressing these claims, we are mindful that Carriere did not object to the erroneous jury instructions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 51; Metromedia Co. v. Fugazy, 983 F.2d 350, 363 (2d Cir.1992) (Absent objection, an error may be pursued on appeal only if it is `plain error' that may result in a miscarriage of justice, or in `obvious instances of ... misapplied law.') (quoting City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 256, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)). More importantly, he did not move at trial for judgment as a matter of law, either at the close of the evidence or after the jury returned its verdict in Rothstein's favor. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)-(b). Ordinarily, those failings would be fatal to Carriere's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the malicious prosecution claim on this appeal. As a general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). More specifically, [i]t is well established that a party is not entitled to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's verdict on a given issue unless it has timely moved in the district court for judgment as a matter of law on that issue. Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 164 (2d Cir.1998). 86 Where, as here, a party has failed to justify a failure to comply with Rule 50, this Court may review the defaulted claim only if such review is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Id.; see also Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F.3d 146, 162 (2d Cir.2001) (no manifest injustice where it was doubtful that proponent would have prevailed on claim); Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 170 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.1999) (We may overlook [a Rule 50] default in order to prevent a manifest injustice in cases where a jury's verdict is wholly without legal support.) (quotation marks and alteration omitted); Kirsch, 148 F.3d at 164-65 (no manifest injustice where jury permissibly found for plaintiff, and had defendants raised the issue at trial, it may be that [plaintiff] would have been able to present additional evidence in support of plaintiff's claim); Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Weible, 92 F.3d 108, 114 (2d Cir.1996) (where defendant did not (and could not) present evidence to sustain a verdict on abuse of process counterclaim, failure to bring Rule 50(a) motion specifically challenging that claim did not bar appellate court from overturning verdict). 87 Even in the absence of the procedural default, Carriere's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence require him to meet a stringent standard. Judgment as a matter of law is not warranted unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [Rothstein] is insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find in [Rothstein's] favor. Provost, 262 F.3d at 154 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 88 We need not decide whether, given these strict standards, the erroneous jury instructions independently justify the reversal of the judgment below. Reversal is already required due to the preserved errors discussed above. However, while acknowledging that these issues are not essential to our resolution of the appeal, we address them below because the instructions at issue, if repeated in future cases, could have the effect of unduly discouraging the flow of truthful information to law enforcement authorities.