Small v. The State of New York et al
Filing
229
ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to file an amended judgment as specified. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 5/29/2019. (MEAL)- CLERK TO FOLLOW UP -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAMELA S. SMALL,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
12-CV-1236S
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION,
CARL CUER, JAMES CONWAY, and SANDRA DOLCE,
Defendants.
On April 15, 2019, this Court resolved the parties’ post-trial motions that followed
a federal jury’s determination that Defendants subjected Plaintiff Pamela S. Small to
discrimination and a hostile work environment and unlawfully retaliated against her while
she was employed as a civilian teacher at the Attica Correctional Facility (“Attica”). See
Small v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 12-CV-1236S, 2019 WL
1593923 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2019).
Among the issues addressed therein, this Court offered Small a remittitur of the
compensatory damages that the jury awarded against Defendant Carl Cuer to $2.88
million. See id. at *10-13. It also affirmed the additional $50,000 punitive damages award
against Cuer and found that Small was entitled to $346,371.35 in pre-judgment interest
on her state back pay award. See id. at *13-15, *21. Familiarity with that decision is
assumed and the findings therein are incorporated by reference.
After the decision, the Clerk of Court entered a partial amended judgment pending
Small’s decision on remittitur. (Docket No. 222.) Small has now accepted the remittitur
1
and this Court has also resolved her motion for supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs.
(See Affidavit of Pamela Small, Docket No. 220-1, ¶ 13 (“ . . . I hereby inform the Court
that I accept the remittitur and will not request another trial on damages against Cuer.”);
Docket No. 228.) Consequently, the Clerk of Court will once again be directed to enter
an amended judgment against all defendants.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that the Clerk of Court is directed to file an amended
judgment against Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision, Carl Cuer, Sandra Dolce, and James Conway as follows:
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: that judgment is entered
in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision on
Claims 1 and 2 in the amount of $2,488,250.79.
FURTHER, that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendant Carl Cuer on Claims 3 and 4 in the amount of
$3,276,371.35.
FURTHER, that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendant Sandra Dolce on Claim 3 in the amount of
$480,000.
FURTHER, that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendant James Conway on Claim 3 in the amount of
$240,000.
FURTHER, that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision, Carl Cuer, Sandra Dolce, and James
Conway in the amount of $862,395.30 for attorneys’ fees.
FURTHER, that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision, Carl Cuer, Sandra Dolce, and James
2
Conway in the amount of $50,458.05 for supplemental
attorneys’ fees.
FURTHER, that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision, Carl Cuer, Sandra Dolce, and James
Conway in the amount of $100,448.72 for costs.
FURTHER, that judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against
Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision, Carl Cuer, Sandra Dolce, and James
Conway in the amount of $3,026.14 for supplemental costs.
FURTHER, that post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. §
1961 (a) will run from October 11, 2018.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2019
Buffalo, New York
/s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?