895 F.3d 168
2d Cir.2018Background
- Conte founded I Media to publish "TV Time" and sold exclusive distribution "routes" to route distributors who paid upfront; I Media failed to deliver product and relationships soured.
- Nearly 50 individuals complained to the Nassau County DA's Office; prosecutors Emmons and Wallace and investigator Falzarno (appellants) investigated, issued subpoenas, and contacted printers/distributors; no criminal charges were filed.
- Conte (pro se at trial) sued appellants for, among other claims, tortious interference with contract under New York law; after a jury trial, Conte prevailed and recovered $1,381,500 (including punitive damages) on the interference claims against appellants.
- Appellants moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)/(b); the district court denied the renewed motion and entered judgment for Conte; appellants appealed the sufficiency of evidence.
- The majority reverses, concluding the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law on two elements (intent and but‑for causation) and directs entry of judgment for appellants; Judge Pooler dissents, arguing forfeiture, deference to the jury/district court, and that a new trial (if any) should have been ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants acted with intent to induce breach of specific contracts | Conte: investigators purposefully targeted his business and used authority to induce breaches (e.g., Falzarno's threats; Wallace's calls) | Appellants: investigation was a lawful law‑enforcement purpose; no evidence of targeting specific contracts or personal stake | Majority: Insufficient evidence of purposeful intent — reversal. Dissent: jury could infer intent; would affirm or grant new trial. |
| Whether appellants' actions were the but‑for cause of counterparties' breaches | Conte: counterparties ceased performance because of investigators' statements/contacts; circumstantial inferences suffice | Appellants: no admissible evidence that third parties stopped performing due to appellants; testimony showed business reasons (no product) | Majority: No admissible evidence linking appellies' conduct to breaches — insufficient causation. Dissent: jury could disbelieve proffered reasons and infer causation. |
| Whether appellants forfeited right to renew Rule 50 arguments | Conte: appellants failed to preserve some insufficiency grounds pre‑verdict; review only for manifest injustice | Appellants: renewed Rule 50(b) preserved review; district court erred | Majority reviews sufficiency and reverses; Pooler dissent argues appellants forfeited some arguments and reversal without new trial is improper. |
| Whether immunity questions need resolution | Conte: not reached because merits support liability | Appellants: claim absolute and qualified immunity | Court: did not address immunity because it found merits insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 110 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 1997) (standard for overturning jury verdict for insufficiency of the evidence)
- S.E.C. v. Warde, 151 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1998) (JMOL standard: evidence viewed most favorably to non‑movant)
- NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Grp., 87 N.Y.2d 614 (N.Y. 1996) (elements of tortious interference with contract and requirement of purposeful intent to induce breach)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co., 404 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 2005) (contract‑based interference claims cannot rest on conduct incidental to lawful purpose)
- Rodrigues v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 79 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993) (investigatory misconduct alleged to have sabotaged contracts for extortion — discussed as an atypical example permitting prosecutor liability)
- Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Warren v. Pataki, 823 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2016) (reiterating that speculation cannot substitute for evidentiary proof of intent)