Allam v. Meyers, 906 F. Supp. 2d 274

Background

Meyers renewed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial after a trial in which Allam alleged assault, battery, and IIED by Meyers.
Allam, a French citizen, and Meyers, an American, had a lengthy relationship leading to a July 2009 engagement and a October 2009 marriage that ended amid domestic-violence allegations.
During the relationship, Allam testified Meyers repeatedly struck, restrained, or threatened her and engaged in coercive, controlling conduct; she described a severe October 16–17, 2009 incident resulting in hospital visits and Meyers’ arrest.
The jury found Meyers liable on all tried claims (assault, battery, IIED) and awarded Allam $200,000 for pain and suffering and $300,000 in punitive damages; the verdict form did not allocate damages among the three claims.
The court later held that the IIED verdict could not stand due to lack of medical evidence supporting severe emotional distress, granting JMOL on the IIED claim.
Because the verdict form did not distinguish damages by theory, the court declined to remittitur in part, but did order a potential new punitive-damages trial unless Allam accepted remittitur to $200,000.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether medical evidence is required to sustain IIED claims.	Allam contends medical proof is not strictly required for IIED in certain cases.	Meyers argues lack of medical evidence undermines the IIED claim.	IIED requires medical evidence (severe distress); JMOL granted on IIED.
Whether the IIED verdict should stand or be removed given inter-spousal context.	Allam's IIED claim fits within the conduct during the relationship.	Inter-spousal considerations bar IIED recovery for certain periods.	IIED dismissal is limited to lack of medical proof; inter-spousal immunity issues discussed but not sustaining IIED.
Whether the jury’s liability verdict on assault and battery should be disturbed in light of the IIED ruling.	Jury credibility and evidence support liability for assault and battery.	Jury’s findings were flawed or inconsistent with the record.	No new trial on liability; verdict for assault and battery stands.
Whether the compensatory and punitive damages for assault and battery are excessive and warrant remittitur or a new trial.	Damages reasonably reflect harm and emotional distress.	Awards are excessive given injuries and lack of permanent damage.	Compensatory award sustained; punitive award reduced from $300,000 to $200,000; new-trial on punitive damages unless remittitur accepted.
Whether a new trial should be ordered on punitive damages if remittitur is not accepted.	Remittitur would unfairly limit the jury’s damages determination.	A new trial on punitive damages is warranted if remittitur is not accepted.	Rule 59 motion granted in part; new trial on punitive damages ordered unless remittitur to $200,000 is accepted.

Key Cases Cited

Roche v. Claverack Coop. Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (medical evidence required to prove severe emotional distress in IIED)
McDougald v. Garber, 536 N.E.2d 372 (N.Y. 1989) (nonpecuniary damages for pain and suffering reflect emotional consequences of injury)
Ismail v. Cohen, 899 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1990) (evidence in emotional distress claims and relevance of evidence)
Rangolan v. Cty. of Nassau, 370 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2004) (remittitur and due-process considerations in NY-related damages)
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (standards for remittitur and why it is sparingly used)
Nash v. Sue Har Equities, LLC, 45 A.D.3d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (remittitur for lack of evidence of severity; comparators for damages)
Kroupova v. Hill, 242 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (remittitur in punitive damages aligning with compensatory damages)
Payne v. Jones, 696 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2012) (due-process considerations for punitive-damages ratios)
DiSorbo v. Hoy, 343 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2003) (criminal penalties and punitive-damages considerations)