Uzoukwu v. Krawiecki

16-3882-cv Uzoukwu v. Krawiecki UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 3 1st day of December, two thousand seventeen. 4 5 Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 6 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 7 PETER W. HALL, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 10 _____________________________________________________ 11 12 AFAM UZOUKWU, 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 15 16 v. 16-3882-cv 17 18 CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHELE KRAWIECKI, CARL MILUSO, 19 20 Defendants-Appellees. 21 _____________________________________________________ 22 23 Appearing for Appellant: Gregory Antollino (Daniela Nanau, on the brief), New York, N.Y. 24 25 Appearing for Appellees: Daniel Matza-Brown, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Richard 26 Dearing, Fay Ng, Assistant Corporation Counsels, on the brief), for 27 Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, 28 New York, N.Y. 29 30 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.). 31 1 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 2 AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. 3 4 Appellant Afam Uzoukwu appeals from the May 12, 2016 judgment entered by the 5 District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.) dismissing his claims 6 following a jury trial. Uzoukwu brought a Section 1983 suit, alleging false arrest. We assume the 7 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for 8 review. 9 10 “We review a denial of a Rule 50(b) motion de novo and the denial of a Rule 59 motion 11 for abuse of discretion.” Hicks v. Tug PATRIOT, 783 F.3d 939, 942 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied 12 sub nom. Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. v. Hicks, 136 S. Ct. 211 (2015) (citing Fabri v. United 13 Techs. Int’l, Inc., 387 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2004)). Judgment as a matter of law should be 14 granted “only if there is such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the 15 jury’s findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or such an 16 overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded men 17 could not arrive at a verdict against the moving party.” Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 18 F.3d 101, 108 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals