952 F.3d 36
2d Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Eliyahu Mirlis attended Yeshiva of New Haven from 2001–2005 and alleged that Rabbi Daniel Greer sexually abused him repeatedly from ages 14–17 (including alcohol, kissing, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation) at school, motels, and Greer’s home.
- Mirlis testified to significant, long‑lasting psychological harm (PTSD), corroborated by his wife and a treating forensic psychologist.
- Mirlis sued Greer and Yeshiva for negligence, recklessness, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and sexual assault/battery; Greer frequently invoked the Fifth Amendment at deposition and at trial.
- The district court instructed the jury that it "may, but is not required to," infer adverse facts from a witness’s refusal to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds; the court limited cumulative questioning.
- The jury found for Mirlis and awarded $15 million in compensatory damages; the district court added $5 million in punitive damages and ~$1.75 million in interest, totaling $21,749,041.10.
- Defendants appealed raising four principal challenges: jury instruction about the Fifth Amendment, the district court’s handling of Greer’s invocation, excessiveness of damages (motion for new trial/remittitur), and denial of Rule 60(b) relief based on newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on Fifth Amendment invocation | Mirlis: the court’s "may, but is not required to" adverse‑inference charge correctly stated the law and was adequate. | Greer/Yeshiva: the court should have added language emphasizing that invocation could be for innocuous reasons and jurors could totally disregard it. | Court: Instruction was legally correct and not prejudicial; additional favorable language not required. |
| Admission/handling of Fifth Amendment invocations at trial | Mirlis: elicitation and limited presentation of Greer’s invocations were probative and properly limited; jury had other corroborating evidence. | Greer/Yeshiva: questioning was cumulative, inflammatory, and amounted to a tactic to dramatize silence and improperly invite adverse inferences. | Court: No abuse of discretion under Rules 401/403; invocations were probative, corroborated, moderated by rulings and limiting instructions. |
| Motion for new trial or remittitur (excessive damages) | Mirlis: testimony and expert evidence of lifelong PTSD and repeated, prolonged abuse supported substantial noneconomic damages; award comparable to other Connecticut cases. | Greer/Yeshiva: $15M compensatory is exorbitant, unsupported by the evidence and shocks the sense of justice. | Court: Applied Connecticut law; award not excessive compared to precedent for repeated child sexual abuse and record supported damages; no remittitur/new trial. |
| Rule 60(b) motion based on newly discovered evidence | Mirlis: (implicitly) new evidence would be cumulative/impeaching and would not have changed the verdict. | Greer/Yeshiva: unnamed former teacher’s statements would have impeached Mirlis/Hack and likely changed outcome. | Court: Denial affirmed; proposed evidence was not shown to be admissible, material, or likely to change the result and was chiefly impeachment/cumulative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1983) (approving adverse‑inference instruction and permitting questioning that elicits privilege assertions when not unduly prejudicial)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1976) (Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences in civil cases against parties who refuse to testify)
- Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Ctrs., Inc., 864 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2017) (invalidating an instruction that effectively directed the jury to draw a specific adverse inference)
- In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props., 934 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2019) (parading repeated videotaped invocations can be unduly prejudicial under Rule 403; court must consider less prejudicial alternatives)
- Munn v. Hotchkiss Sch., 795 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2015) (appellate standard for reviewing remittitur/new trial under Connecticut law)
- Imbrogno v. Chamberlin, 89 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1996) (framework for remittitur in diversity cases applying state substantive law)
- Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am. Corp., 147 A.3d 104 (Conn. 2016) (Connecticut Supreme Court upholding multi‑million awards for child sexual‑abuse incidents)