Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRule 59New TrialRule 59(a)new trialweight of the evidencecredibilityperjury

Facts

The case arose from a street altercation near Yankee Stadium between Alfred and Daniel Ricciuti and defendant Watson, followed by arrests and station-house processing by transit police officers. At trial, the parties gave irreconcilable accounts of who initiated the fight, whether Daniel participated, what statements Alfred made, who arrested Daniel, and whether officers fabricated reports or testimony. Plaintiffs argued that the defense verdicts could only have resulted from perjury and sought a new trial. The court evaluated those claims solely under Rule 59(a) standards governing weight of the evidence, credibility-based verdicts, and allegations of perjury.

Issue

Whether the jury's defense verdicts should be set aside and a new trial granted under Rule 59(a) because the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence, constituted a miscarriage of justice, or were procured by perjured testimony. Also, whether a verdict that turned largely on witness credibility could be disturbed on this record.

Rule

A Rule 59(a) motion may be granted when the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict is a miscarriage of justice. Although the trial judge may weigh the evidence and is not required to view it in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, the court should rarely disturb a jury's credibility determinations, especially where competing accounts are equally plausible and there is no independent evidence clearly showing that belief in one side would create a miscarriage of justice. If a party seeks a new trial on the ground of perjury in a civil case, the alleged perjury must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, not merely by conflicting testimony or prior inconsistencies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal civil rights trial in Chicago, Maya Ortiz claimed that Officer Devin Kerr shoved her without provocation, while Kerr testified that Maya lunged first and he used minimal force to protect himself. No video, medical record, or third-party witness resolved the dispute, and the jury returned a defense verdict. Maya moves for a new trial under Rule 59(a), arguing that the judge personally found her more believable.

How should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. Rule 59(a) permits a new trial when the verdict is seriously erroneous or a miscarriage of justice, and the judge may weigh the evidence. But the majority stressed that courts should rarely disturb credibility determinations, especially in a quintessential 'he said, he said' case with equally plausible accounts and no independent evidence clearly demonstrating injustice. The judge's personal disagreement alone is not enough. (Derived from Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority (n.d.).)