The District Trial Court agreed with Tyson's legal position and granted him the post-trial victory. The trial judge reasoned that "under New York law, terms such as `permanent employment', `until retirement' or `long term' do not state a definite term of employment as a matter of law" ( 956 F. Supp. 213, 216). The court concluded that "the alleged term of the employment contract, `for as long as Tyson boxes professionally,' does not state a term of definite duration as a matter of law" (id.).
A trial court should grant such a motion when convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Katara v. D.E. Jones Commodities, Inc., 835 F.2d 966, 970 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Newmont Mines Ltd. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 1986)); see also Rooney v. Tyson, 956 F. Supp. 213, 217 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). That is, a trial court should "view the verdict in the overall setting of the trial; consider the character of the evidence and the complexity or simplicity of the legal principles which the jury was bound to apply to the facts; and abstain from interfering with the verdict unless it is quite clear that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result."