Opinion ID: 4521759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to the Jury’s Verdict

Text: A Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motion for judgment as matter of law is required to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. See Rothstein v. Carriere, 373 F.3d 275, 291 (2d Cir. 2004); Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858, 869 (2d Cir. 1998). The failure to make such a motion is one that this Court will excuse only to “prevent a manifest injustice in cases [w]here a jury’s verdict is wholly without legal support.” Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 170 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). We reject Brock’s challenge to the jury’s verdict. Brock did not move for judgment as a matter of law as required. Moreover, the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants was supported by evidence at trial. 1 II. Admissibility of Carrington Brock’s Written Statement We also affirm the district court’s exclusion of Carrington Brock’s written statement. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and will reverse only for manifest error. See Cameron v. City of New York, 598 F.3d 50, 61 (2d Cir. 2010). The district court properly excluded Carrington Brock’s written statement on hearsay grounds and because it lacked indicia of reliability.