Conte v. County of Nassau, 596 F. App'x 1

Anthony Conte, pro se, sued Nassau County, the City of New York, and multiple prosecutors, detectives, and employees alleging unlawful investigation/prosecution and various state and federal torts.
District court granted summary judgment and later granted defendants’ post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law; denied Rule 59 motions for new trial as moot; entered final judgment July 31, 2013.
Conte appealed, challenging dismissal of state-law claims against NYC, summary-judgment dismissals (defamation, injurious falsehood, IIED) against Detective Shaska and certain Nassau County prosecutors/investigator, First Amendment dismissals, JMOL on false arrest, JMOL on tortious interference, and denial of a new damages trial.
Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of state-law claims against the City and affirmed summary judgment on defamation/injurious-falsehood/IIED claims as time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations.
The Court vacated the district court’s JMOL that dismissed Conte’s tortious-interference-with-contract claims against Emmons, Falzarano, and Wallace, finding essential factual questions (scope of employment and date of injury) were not submitted to the jury and could not be resolved by the court on the late-raised limitations defense.
The case was remanded for further proceedings limited to the vacated tortious-interference claims and for the district court to conditionally rule on the denied new-trial motions consistent with Rule 50(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NYC can be vicariously liable for state-law torts	Conte: district court failed to address respondeat superior for NYC	Defendants: underlying employee claims were dismissed, so no vicarious liability	Affirmed dismissal; underlying claims against employees resolved, so no municipal liability
Whether defamation, injurious falsehood, IIED were time-barred	Conte: limitations improperly applied; municipal 1-year-and-90-day period should govern or be considered	Defendants: claims barred by one-year (or one-year-and-90-day) statute of limitations	Affirmed summary judgment; claims untimely under governing statutes
Whether defendants’ late limitations defense could support JMOL on tortious interference	Conte: factual questions (scope of employment, date of injury) required jury determination	Defendants: limitations defense bars tortious-interference claims and supports JMOL	Vacated JMOL; factual issues were essential and not submitted to jury, so court could not decide them on late-raised defense
Whether a new damages trial should be ordered	Conte: entitled to new damages trial if JMOL vacated	Defendants: no reason for a new trial	Remanded for district court to conditionally rule on new-trial motions; preserved jury verdict benefit absent defendants’ appeal arguments

Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337 (2d Cir.) (scope-of-review on summary disposition and merging earlier rulings into final judgment)
Vona v. County of Niagara, 119 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.) (finality of district court orders missing express rulings)
United States ex rel. Polansky v. Pfizer, Inc., 762 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (omission of ministerial duties not fatal to finality)
Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.) (Rule 50 and necessity of special interrogatories for affirmative defenses)
Alfaro v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 210 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (standard for Rule 50(b) JMOL parallels summary judgment standard)
Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 52 N.Y.2d 422 (N.Y.) (limits on republication exception for statute of limitations)
Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90 (N.Y.) (damage is element; cause arises when damages sustained)