Hart v. Westchester County Department of Social Services

Second Circuit

Hart v. Westchester County Department of Social Services

131 F. App'x 763

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 18, 2005

DocketNo. 04-3867

StatusPublished

This text of 131 F. App'x 763 (Hart v. Westchester County Department of Social Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. Westchester County Department of Social Services, 131 F. App'x 763 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[764]*764SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dated March 15, 2004, granting defendant’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law.

We review the District Court’s grant of a Rule 50 motion under a de novo standard, and apply “the same standard as the district court itself was required to apply.” Diesel v. Town of Lewisboro, 232 F.3d 92, 103 (2d Cir.2000). ‘We have held that ‘[jjudgment as a matter of law may not properly be granted under Rule 50 unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, is insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find in her favor.’” Davis v. Rodriguez, 364 F.3d 424, 432 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 289 (2d Cir.1998)).

The District Court orally granted defendant’s Rule 50 motion after observing that plaintiff had offered no evidence at trial regarding any of the triable issues in the case. We reject plaintiffs arguments on appeal for the reasons stated by the District Court at trial on March 9, 2004.

We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and found them to be without merit. We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

We hereby DENY plaintiffs motions for non-compliance order against defendant and for substitution of attorney.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[764]*764SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dated March 15, 2004, granting defendant’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law.

We review the District Court’s grant of a Rule 50 motion under a de novo standard, and apply “the same standard as the district court itself was required to apply.” Diesel v. Town of Lewisboro, 232 F.3d 92, 103 (2d Cir.2000). ‘We have held that ‘[jjudgment as a matter of law may not properly be granted under Rule 50 unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party, is insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find in her favor.’” Davis v. Rodriguez, 364 F.3d 424, 432 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 289 (2d Cir.1998)).

The District Court orally granted defendant’s Rule 50 motion after observing that plaintiff had offered no evidence at trial regarding any of the triable issues in the case. We reject plaintiffs arguments on appeal for the reasons stated by the District Court at trial on March 9, 2004.

We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and found them to be without merit. We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

We hereby DENY plaintiffs motions for non-compliance order against defendant and for substitution of attorney.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. App'x 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-westchester-county-department-of-social-services-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack