Crawford v. Tribeca Lending Corp.
815 F.3d 121
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Crawford sues Tribeca Lending, Franklin Credit, and Lenders First for common-law fraud and TILA violations related to a mortgage loan.
- Defendants allegedly forged Crawford’s signature to create a $504,000 mortgage and later foreclosed.
- Defendants contend Crawford signed authentic loan documents at a JFK meeting on December 11, 2004.
- A jury found for defendants; Crawford moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, which the district court denied.
- On appeal, Crawford challenges evidentiary rulings and the district court’s denial of post-trial motions; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Decarolis testimony on habit | Crawford argues Decarolis’s habit evidence is prohibited propensity evidence. | Defendants rely on Rule 406 allowing habit/routine practice evidence. | Admission proper under Rule 406. |
| Photocopied loan documents as evidence | Photocopies are inadmissible hearsay/unauthenticated originals. | Documents are nonhearsay contracts and authenticated; originals lost under Rule 1004. | Properly admitted; authentication and best evidence considerations satisfied. |
| Authentication and best evidence considerations | Copies cannot prove Crawford’s signature or authenticity. | Witness testimony authenticates signatures; originals lost; Rule 1004 applicable. | Authentication and Rule 1004 supported admission. |
| Post-trial motions sufficiency (Rule 50/59) | verdict should be set aside due to evidentiary errors and credibility issues. | jury credibility and substantial evidence support verdict; no manifest injustice. | Court upheld denial of both Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions. |
| Overall sufficiency of evidence to support fraud/TILA claims | Evidence shows forged documents and nondisclosures; jury should have found for Crawford. | Evidence supported a finding Crawford had signed documents; verdict for defendants appropriate. | District court’s and appellate court’s verdict in favor of defendants affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrion v. Smith, 549 F.3d 583 (2d Cir. 2008) (habit evidence admissible to show conduct on a specific occasion)
- United States v. Arredondo, 349 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2003) (habit/routine practice admissible to prove conformity)
- George v. Celotex Corp., 914 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1990) (notice as nonhearsay purpose)
- Dupree, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (nonhearsay purposes in contract-like documents)
- Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2004) (Rule 901 authentication standard)
- Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 59 motions)
- Raedle v. Credit Agricole, 670 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2012) (caution in reconsidering credibility determinations on a Rule 59 motion)