Opinion ID: 4272315
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Credibility, Perjury, and Hearsay Claims

Text: In her pro se brief, Cain contends that Atelier and its witnesses perjured themselves at trial, and that the district court admitted impermissible hearsay evidence and made improper credibility determinations. With respect to the perjury and credibility arguments, we review a district court's factual findings for clear error. Nat'l Mkt. Share, Inc. v. Sterling Nat'l Bank, 392 F.3d 520, 528 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Fed R. Civ. P. 52(a)). At a bench trial, the trial court is the finder of fact and makes credibility determinations. Krist v. Kolombos Rest. Inc., 688 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2012). We may not second-guess either the trial court's credibility assessments or its choice between permissible competing inferences. Ceraso v. Motiva Enters., LLC, 326 F.3d 303, 316 (2d Cir. 2003). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not commit clear error in its evaluation and assessment of the witnesses, their testimony, and their credibility. Accordingly, we reject the perjury and credibility arguments. With respect to the hearsay argument, we review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wexler, 522 F.3d 194, 201-02 -8- (2d Cir. 2008). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Anderson and Rochester to testify as to complaints of other students. This testimony was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), but rather, provided background information about why Cain and Rochester met and why Rochester was concerned after only a week. The fact that other students made complaints about Cain's behavior was relevant. As the district court concluded, The information actually known to Mr. Rochester when he made the decision to dismiss Ms. Cain was fully sufficient to demonstrate that she was not qualified to continue in Atelier's course of study. Cain, 2016 WL 6195764, at . ... We have considered Cain's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk -9-