Filed: Jun. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-3971 Muñoz v. The Manhattan Club Timeshare Association, Inc. 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 (
Summary: 14-3971 Muñoz v. The Manhattan Club Timeshare Association, Inc. 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 (W..
More
14-3971
Muñoz v. The Manhattan Club Timeshare Association, Inc.
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 17th day of June, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 ANTONIO MUÑOZ,
13 Plaintiff-Appellee,
14
15 -v.- 14-3971
16
17 THE MANHATTAN CLUB TIMESHARE
18 ASSOCIATION, INC.,
19 Defendant-Appellant.
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
21
22 FOR APPELLANT: JEFFREY H. DAICHMAN (with Judith
23 A. Stoll, on the brief), Kane
24 Kessler, P.C., New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY ANTOLLINO (with Stephen
28 Bergstein, Bergstein & Ullrich,
29 LLP, Chester, New York, and
30 Richard Cardinale, Brooklyn, New
1 York, on the brief), New York,
2 New York.
3
4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
5 Court for the Southern District of New York (Oetken, J.).
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
8 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
9 AFFIRMED.
10
11 The Manhattan Club Timeshare Association, Inc. (“The
12 Manhattan Club”) appeals from the judgment of the United
13 States District Court for the Southern District of New York
14 (Oetken, J.), denying its motions pursuant to Federal Rules
15 of Civil Procedure 50 and 59, after a jury trial in which
16 Antonio Muñoz won a verdict on retaliation claims under the
17 Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
18 Rights Law. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
19 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
20 presented for review.
21
22 We review de novo the district court’s denial of The
23 Manhattan Club’s motion for judgment as a matter of law
24 pursuant to Rule 50. Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh
25 Holding,
746 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 2014). “In undertaking
26 this review, we view the evidence in the light most
27 favorable to the party against which the motion was made and
28 draw all reasonable inferences regarding the weight of the
29 evidence and the credibility of witnesses in favor of the
30 non-movant.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations
31 omitted). We review the district court’s denial of The
32 Manhattan Club’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule
33 59(a) for abuse of discretion.
Id.
34
35 Applying these standards, we agree with the district
36 court that there is no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict.
37 Muñoz put forth sufficient evidence at trial to allow a
38 reasonable jury to conclude that there was a causal
39 connection between his protected activity and his
40 termination; “Muñoz offered evidence that his termination
41 was the capstone to a longer campaign of retaliation that
42 began shortly after his complaint,” Muñoz v. Manhattan Club
43 Timeshare Ass’n, No. 11-cv-7037 (JPO),
2014 WL 4652481, at
44 *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014); and the damages award was
45 within the jury’s wide latitude, see Zeno v. Pine Plains
46 Cent. School Dist.,
702 F.3d 655, 671 (2d Cir. 2012).
47
2
1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in The
2 Manhattan Club’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the
3 judgment of the district court.
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
7
3