Milfort v. Prevete et al

Filing 85

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In accordance with the Court's prior orders, any new trial in this action would be limited to the issue of punitive damages. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 3/18/2014. (Brucella, Michelle)

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
GETRO MILFORT,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

-againstCOURT OFFICER FELi)( PREVETE,
COURT OFFICER CHRISTOPHER FERRARI,

10-cv-4467
(Kuntz, J.)

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge

On March 14, 2014, the Court issued an order remitting the punitive damages award in
this action. (Dkt. 82). By letter of March 17, 2014, Plaintiff requested clarification as to whether
any new trial would cover "only punitive damages, or ... all damages, including compensatory
and punitive damages." (Dkt. 83).
The Court now clarifies that any new trial would, as the March 14, 2014 Order indicated,
be limited to punitive damages. (See Dkt. 82, at 17 ("If the Plaintiff chooses not to accept the
remitted punitive damages award of$5,000, a new trial shall be held on that issue.") (emphasis
added); Order re Dkt. 70 (Jury Verdict)). It is "settled in this circuit" that the remittitur
procedure allows a plaintiff the option of choosing between a remitted damages sum and a new
trial. See Vasbinder v. Scott, 976 F.2d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, any new trial required in
the event Plaintiff rejects remittitur will "be limited to the issue of the appropriate amounts of the
punitive damage awards, since [that issue is] distinct from the other issues in the case and the
trial court's instructions and special verdict questions sufficiently segmented the issue[] for

consideration by the jury." Smith v. Lightning Bolt Productions, Inc., 861F.2d363, 375 (2d.
Cir. 1998) (citing Gasoline Prods. Co v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494, 500 (1931)); see
Dkt. 70, at 3 (asking the jury whether Defendant acted "maliciously or wantonly" before asking
the jury to award punitive damages).
Therefore, and in accordance with the Court's prior orders, any new trial in this action
would be limited to the issue of punitive damages. (See Dkt. 82; Order re Dkt. 70 (Jury
Verdict)).

SO ORDERED
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 18, 2014

s/WFK

2