Opinion ID: 772567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Damages from the Predicate Acts

Text: 200 To compensate plaintiffs for Dirie's predicate acts, the jury awarded $20,251.94 for the value of the services of Harry Fisher; $12,300 for timber and/or firewood extorted for the benefit of Ray Ferber; and $1,000.00 for the truck wheels and tires extorted for the benefit of Dirie's son. See Special Verdict Form, Question 5A at 3-4 (JA:631-32). Dirie claims that the damages awarded are unsupported by the record. 201 To compensate plaintiffs for the predicate acts of the Bernas defendants, the jury found that the extortion of sand and gravel by the Bernas defendants caused damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of $250,000. The Bernas defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to present the jury with a sound basis to establish these damages for the extorted sand and gravel, because the plaintiffs' evidence did not establish the amount of sand and gravel removed or the fair market value of these materials. 202 After trial, the defendants moved, in the alternative, for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. With the exception of the $1.6 million award discussed above, the district court denied both motions. As a general matter, an appellate court will reverse a trial court's denial of a new trial motion where the denial constitutes an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Dailey v. Societe Generale, 108 F.3d 451, 458 (2d Cir. 1997); Smith v. Lightning Bolt Prods., Inc., 861 F.2d 363, 370 (2d Cir. 1988). This circuit, however, recognizes an exception to this rule: where a district court denies a motion for a new trial made on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, such a ruling is not reviewable on appeal. 23 Dailey, 108 F.3d at 458; see also Robinson v. Cattaraugus County, 147 F.3d 153, 160 (2d Cir. 1998); Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Asbestos Claims Management Corp., 73 F.3d 1178, 1199 (2d Cir. 1995), modified on other grounds, 85 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1996). 203 It is not entirely clear whether the defendants' motions for a new trial were made on the ground that the evidence supporting the jury verdict was legally insufficient or on the ground that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. See Memorandum and Order dated May 17, 1999 (Brieant, J.) (JA:879-80) (quoted in section II(B)(3) above). It is similarly unclear on appeal whether the defendants challenge the legal sufficiency or the weight of the evidence. See, e.g., Brief of Defendants-Appellants John Bernas, John Bernas, Inc. and JML Quarries, Inc. at 34 (Plaintiffs failed to present the jury with a sound basis... to establish damages....); Brief of Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee William Dirie at 22 (The plaintiffs' claim... was not supported by the evidence....). Either way, we would affirm. 204 If the defendants' motion for a new trial and their argument on appeal are construed as a challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the jury's award, appellate review is unavailable. Stonewall Ins. Co., 73 F.3d at 1199. As this Court explained in Stonewall Ins. Co.: 205 Review of a trial court's ruling assessing the weight of the evidence imposes on an appellate court far more of a burden than arises from review of a ruling rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The latter ruling can be readily affirmed as soon as the reviewing court identifies adequate evidence in the record.... Such review does not require an assessment of all the evidence. Reviewing a ruling on a weight of the evidence challenge, however, obliges a reviewing court to examine in some detail all of the evidence. That burdensome review is warranted in the rare case where a trial judge rejects a jury's verdict as against the weight of the evidence... but is not warranted in the far more frequent circumstance where a trial judge denies a weight of the evidence challenge and leaves in place a jury verdict supported by legally sufficient evidence. 206 Id. Where a trial judge denies a weight of the evidence challenge and leaves in place a jury verdict supported by legally sufficient evidence, 207 the loser's only appellate recourse is to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The loser is... entitled to argue to the trial judge that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and to obtain a new trial if the judge can be persuaded, but the denial of that challenge is one of those few rulings that is simply unavailable for appellate review. 208 Id. 209 To the extent that the challenge is one to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we conclude that, with the exception of the evidence regarding the value of the truck wheels and tires extorted for the benefit of Dirie's son, discussed below, the claim fails. There was at least some evidence supporting all of the remaining damage awards. For example, with respect to the jury's award of $20,251.94 for the value of the services of Harry Fisher, there was evidence that DeFalco hired Fisher as a foreman for the real estate development project, purchased Fisher a new truck in Fisher's son's name, and made the purchase payments on the truck. For Fisher's services, the jury awarded the entire value of the truck that DeFalco purchased. See Vehicle Invoice dated July 28, 1987 from Robert Chevrolet, Inc. (E:7) (Total: 20251.94). 210 Similarly, with respect to the jury's award of $12,300 for timber and/or firewood extorted for the benefit of Ray Ferber, DeFalco testified that, following the defendants' suggestions, he permitted Dirie, Fisher and others to cut timber and firewood on the property. When DeFalco granted a logging contract for a certain section of the property to the Walczak Lumber Company for a price of $8800, see (E:129-30), Dirie insisted that DeFalco cancel the contract and return the check. When DeFalco protested, Dirie told him Don't expect to get your approvals at the Planning Board meeting unless it's done. (T2:126). DeFalco was further instructed by Tax Assessor Richard Ferber to use his cousin, Ray Ferber, for the logging contract, [o]therwise [he was] never going to get approvals. (T2:128). DeFalco returned the check and paid an $880 penalty for canceling the contract. (T2:128); (E:132). DeFalco also testified that Ferber started cutting trees in other sections and did not pay him for those trees. (T2:131). Paul Kowalczyk, a consulting forester, testified that the value of the timber that was on the right of way and adjoining lands in the second section was around $2800. (T2:417). 211 There was also evidence from which the jury could reach the damages awarded against the Bernas defendants. The documentary evidence before the jury included, for example: (1) the schedule prepared by Bernas to account for the quantity of sand and gravel removed by him from the JOBO gravel pit for the six-month period of January though June of 1989 (E:163-65); (2) the schedule of additional sales of materials by Bernas entitled John Bernas Printout as of July 20, 1988, (E:166-69); and (3) the letter from Town Engineer Kelly (E:186), which reflected a $70,000 cost for placing an additional four inches of gravel on the roads at Phase II. 24 212 In addition, the jury heard testimony supporting the damages awarded against the Bernas defendants. For example, John Fink (Fink) who, at the relevant times, worked for the Sullivan County Division of Solid Waste and also owned property across the road from the Top of the World Developments, testified of his observations at the JOBO gravel pit. Fink testified that, in 1988 and 1989, he observed many trucks, empty dump trucks, entering the property. They were being filled with sand and gravel and stone, and then driving away to their destinations. (T2:380). The markings on the trucks that Fink observed were from the Town of Delaware and New York State, Town of Freemont, Town of Rockland, Town of Callicoon. I noticed Town of Manchester and Town of Damacas in Pennsylvania. Those were the municipal trucks. There were many trucks from Mr. Bernas's own construction company, and other private haulers, as well. (T2:381). Fink testified that the trucks he observed were steadily going in empty and coming out full. (T2:381). 213 Bernas also testified that he allowed the Town of Delaware to screen material and remove 4,000 to 5,000 cubic yards of sand from the JOBO property using the Town of Delaware's own equipment and without charge to the Town. (T2:525-29, 778) (Q: How much sand did the Town of Delaware remove from the gravel pit? A: I would guess four to five thousand yards.). 214 John Cortese (Cortese), from the Cortese Brothers Construction Company, which built approximately 800 feet of road at the Top of the World Development, also testified. Cortese stated that, after clearing the area of brush, his company put down the base, [and] put down a foot of gravel. (T2:405). The base of the road included bank gravel, 28 feet wide. Id. Cortese testified that the Town of Delaware required 12 inches of bank gravel on its roads. Id. Cortese obtained the materials to build the 800 feet of road from Joe DeFalco. Id. He built the 800 feet of roads for $9600 and that the cost per mile of roads with 12 inches of gravel in the Town of Delaware was approximately $60,000 a mile. (T2:406-07). Cortese also testified that, during the time period when he was doing work at the plaintiffs' development he sold gravel from his own gravel pit to others in Sullivan County. (T2:409). The price Cortese received was three or three-fifty a yard. (T2:409). 215 In light of this evidence, any claim by the defendants that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the awards of $20,251.94 for the value of the services of Harry Fisher, the $12,300 for timber and/or firewood extorted for the benefit of Ray Ferber, and the $250,000 for extorted sand and gravel is without merit. There was sufficient evidence to sustain these awards, and weighing that evidence was a matter for the jury. 216 The only exception is the $1,000.00 awarded for the truck wheels and tires extorted for the benefit of Dirie's son. The plaintiffs, providing no record citation, argue that [t]he jury, having found that Dirie extorted the truck wheels and tires from DeFalco, were perfectly reasonable in adopting DeFalco's testimony that the same were valued at $1,000.00. It is that amount that they awarded and the award should not be disturbed. Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants at 42. 217 With respect to the truck wheels and tires extorted for the benefit of Dirie's son, DeFalco testified as follows: 218 Q: Now, around that time, Mr. DeFalco, did there come a time when an incident occurred regarding a truck and some tires that you had on the truck? 219 A: Yes. 220 Q: Please tell the jury about that. 221 A: I had a 1984 Ford that I was using personally up there. When I bought it, I took the tires off and put big tires on. And somebody wanted the four tires and wheels. They were brand new, no mileage on them. And I had the truck parked by the office. And Bill Dirie's son had the same kind of truck. 222 And Dirie came down and asked me what am I doing with these four tires. I said I'm selling them. 223 He said: You just sold them to my son. He needs tires, something similar to that. Give them to my son. 224 And I looked at him. And Fisher - like I walked away. And Fisher came up to me and said: You know, it's Bill Dirie, man. We need this guy. The Planning Board, the houses are going up. 225 You know it was always the same story: Go along with it. Go along with it. 226 Q: Did Mr. Dirie bring his son over to the truck at that point? 227 A: Yeah. This [sic] son came over to the truck and took the four tires and wheels. 228 Q: Did you hear Mr. Dirie say anything to his son at that point? 229 A: I believe he said, It's a present for you. 230 (T2:152-53). We have been unable, however, to find any evidence regarding the value of the truck wheels and tires that the jury found Dirie extorted for his son, and the plaintiffs have pointed us to none. Indeed, the only reference in the record to the value of the tires appears to be from counsel's closing argument, in which he stated: 231 Remember the testimony about the truck tires that Dirie told DeFalco to give to his son? If you believe DeFalco that he had the tires sold for $1,000, that is an easy calculation. 232 (T2:1152). Given the complete lack of evidence regarding the value of the truck wheels and tires, the record is legally insufficient to sustain the jury's award. Because we have been unable to find - and the plaintiffs have failed to provide citation to - any evidence in the record establishing the value of the truck wheels and tires, we vacate that $1,000 award.