Opinion ID: 3132420
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remaining Damages

Text: Although the jury’s award of $900,000 for the lost developer’s fee cannot be sustained, we do not believe that a further reduction of the remaining $100,000 compensatory damages award is appropriate. See Shu-Tao Lin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 742 F.2d 45, 49 (2d Cir. 1984) (“Crucial to the practice of remittitur . . . is the requirement that the court confine its role to the removal of the excess portion of the verdict so that the damage calculation leaves in the judgment a portion of what the jury awarded.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Absent the developer’s fee, the remaining two components of the jury’s award consisted of the $81,000 in actual costs TAG expended in preparing its Spring Run Village proposal and compensation for the harm TAG suffered to its business reputation. The district court found, and we agree, that TAG is clearly entitled to the award of $81,000 for its actual costs. We disagree with the district court, however, that the award 34 12-3775-cv(L) The Anderson Group v. City of Saratoga Springs should consist of only that amount because “the record contains nothing more than passing references to and conjecture about [TAG’s] reputation.” S.A. 33. Regarding the harm to its business representation, TAG introduced evidence at trial that throughout the fall of 2004, various City officials vilified TAG in the press, referred to the Andersons as “school yard bullies,” and publically alleged that the affordable housing component of Spring Run Village was a “smoke screen.” Trial Tr. 137, 272–73, 301–02, 322, 1277–79. A comprehensive review of the full trial reveals that the City did not oppose or rebut any of this evidence. Although the City now argues that TAG failed to prove harm to its business reputation because it did not offer evidence of lost business opportunities, TAG Br. at 38–39, the City has not cited any case holding that such evidence is necessary to recover harm to business reputation under the FHA. Rather, the City appears to rely on New York state law, under which damages due to harm to business reputation generally are not recoverable in a breach of contract action without specific proof of lost business opportunities as a result of diminished reputation. See, e.g., Smith v. Positive Prods., 419 F. Supp. 2d 437, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc. v. IAG Int’l Acceptance Grp., 28 F. Supp. 2d 126, 128, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Under the FHA, however, there is no similar requirement governing the type of evidence needed to permit recovery for lost profits. Indeed, the district court instructed the jury that it was permitted to award compensatory damages for “any cost or expenses [TAG] . . . incurred as a result of the [City’s] discriminatory conduct,” including “financial losses, loss of business reputation and good will and loss of opportunity.” Trial Tr. 2054 (emphasis added). The court did not instruct the jury as to the type of evidence required to support an 35 12-3775-cv(L) The Anderson Group v. City of Saratoga Springs award of those damages, and the City did not object to the content of the court’s instructions. Thus, the jury was entitled to credit TAG’s uncontested and unrebutted evidence concerning the harm to its business reputation. Because TAG met its burden of introducing evidence that the City’s actions harmed its business reputation, any risk of uncertainty as to the amount of those damages falls on the City. See Story Parchment, 282 U.S. at 563; Ismail v. Cohen, 899 F.2d 183, 186 (2d Cir. 1990) (“It is well settled that calculation of damages is the province of the jury.”). For all of these reasons, we sustain that portion of the jury’s compensatory damages award consisting of $100,000 for TAG’s actual costs and harm to its business reputation, and we excise only that portion of the award consisting of $900,000 for the lost developer’s fee. We remand with instructions that the district court grant a new trial limited only to the issue of damages unless TAG agrees to a remittitur reducing its award to $100,000.9