107 F.3d 3
Joanne NIEMANN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
William R. WHALEN, sued in his official and individual
Fleet Bank of New York, Defendant.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 12, 1997.
NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Appearing for Appellant: Christine E. Morrison, Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, New York.
Appearing for Appellee: Michael H. Sussman, Sussman, Bergstein, Wotorson and Whateley, Goshen, New York.
Before OAKES, WINTER and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was argued.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.
William Whalen appeals from Judge Conner's denial of his post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial on all issues, and for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages. The motion followed a trial in which a jury awarded Joanne Niemann compensatory damages of $150,000 against Whalen and his co-defendant Fleet Bank, punitive damages of $200,000 against Whalen and punitive damages of $275,000 against Fleet Bank. Niemann brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Whalen, a police officer, acting in concert with Fleet Bank employees, violated her constitutional rights by coercing her to confess to stealing $3,220 from Fleet Bank, where she worked as a teller, and by subsequently pursuing criminal charges against her.
The district court denied appellant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, denied appellant's motion for a new trial on all issues, but granted appellant a new trial solely on the issue of punitive damages unless Niemann consented to remit the award of punitive damages against Whalen to $40,000. Niemann v. Whalen, 928 F.Supp. 296 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Niemann has so consented.
We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its post-trial decision, id., which also incorporates sections of its pre-trial decision, Niemann v. Whalen, 911 F.Supp. 656 (S.D.N.Y.1996).