Opinion ID: 4512151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion for Relief from Final Judgment

Text: Finally, Greer contends that newly discovered evidence, a former Yeshiva teacherʹs recounting of Mirlisʹs interactions with Hack while the two 6 In his appellate brief, Mirlis estimates that he was sexually assaulted ninety times over the course of three academic years. In denying the motion for a new trial, the district court noted that the $15 million award would amount to ʺroughly $300,000 per episodeʺ using fifty as the number of incidents, which it concluded was ʺnot out of lineʺ with other cases. D. Ct. Doc. No. 300 at 32. - 28 - were at Yeshiva, would have changed the outcome of the trial by discrediting the testimony of Mirlis and Hack. This argument is without merit.
This Court reviews a district courtʹs ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Devlin v. Transp. Commcʹns Intʹl Union, 175 F.3d 121, 132 (2d Cir. 1999). ʺRule 60(b) allows relief from a judgment or order when evidence has been newly discovered or for any other reason ʹjustifying relief from the operation of the judgment.ʹʺ Id. at 131‐32 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (6)). As we have explained, [T]he movant must demonstrate that (1) the newly discovered evidence was of facts that existed at the time of trial or other dispositive proceeding, (2) the movant must have been justifiably ignorant of them despite due diligence, (3) the evidence must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome, and (4) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching. United States v. Intʹl Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); Westerly Elecs. Corp. v. Walter Kidde & Co., 367 F.2d 269, 270 (2d Cir. 1966) (per curiam) (citing Kolan v. Csengeri, 268 F.2d