Scotto v. Brady

19 Citing cases

  1. Catton v. Def. Tech. Sys. Inc.

    541 F. App'x 25 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion where a district court tailored the amount of attorney's fees—awarded in connection with moving for Rule 11 sanctions—to be in line with the "direct result" of the Rule 11 violation

    And this Court has already rejected the argument that Scotto's claim of loss "infected" the entire case. See Scotto v. Brady, 410 F. App'x 355, 361 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("[E]vidence relating to [Scotto's] losses was of extremely limited relevance to the remaining claims and defenses."). "[A] substantial violation occurs whenever the nonfrivolous claims that are joined with frivolous ones are insufficiently meritorious to save the complaint as a whole from being abusive," Gurary v. Nu-Tech Bio-Med, Inc., 303 F.3d 212, 222 (2d Cir. 2002), and here the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Third Amended Complaint as a whole was not abusive and did not substantially fail to comply with Rule 11.

  2. Kha'Sun Creator Allah v. Kemp

    9:19-CV-839 (MAD/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2024)

    The Second Circuit has held that "convictions over ten years old [should] be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances." Scotto v. Brady, 410 Fed.Appx. 355, 360 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Zinman v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 983 F.2d 431, 434 (2d Cir. 1993)). As the convictions are approximately eighteenth and twenty-five years old, this factor weighs heavily in favor of preclusion.

  3. Grytsyk v. Morales

    1:19-cv-03470 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 19, 2023)   Cited 4 times

    id. at 56.1(d) (“Each statement by the movant or opponent . . . controverting any statement of material fact[] must be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible, set forth as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).”); Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (“If the opposing party then fails to controvert a fact so set forth in the moving party's Rule 56.1 statement, that fact will be deemed admitted.”); Kesner v. Buhl, 590 F.Supp.3d 680, 690-91 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (disregarding responses to a Rule 56.1 statement consisting of blanket denials, wholesale evidentiary objections, or citations that lack evidentiary support or rely on allegations in the complaint); see also Scotto v. Brady, 410 F. App'x. 355, 361 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e observe that ‘a district court deciding a summary judgment motion has broad discretion in choosing whether to admit evidence,' and that ‘[t]he principles governing admissibility of evidence do not change on a motion for summary judgment.'” (quoting Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 264 (2d Cir. 2009))).

  4. Mercado v. Mount Sinai Beth Isr.

    1:21-cv-10467 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 14, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    id. at 56.1(d) (“Each statement by the movant or opponent . . . controverting any statement of material fact[] must be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible, set forth as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).”); Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (“If the opposing party then fails to controvert a fact so set forth in the moving party's Rule 56.1 statement, that fact will be deemed admitted.”); Kesner v. Buhl, 590 F.Supp.3d 680, 691 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (disregarding responses to a Rule 56.1 statement consisting of blanket denials, wholesale evidentiary objections, or citations that lack evidentiary support or rely on allegations in the complaint); see also Scotto v. Brady, 410 F. App'x. 355, 361 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e observe that a ‘district court deciding a summary judgment motion has broad discretion in choosing whether to admit evidence,' and that ‘[t]he principles governing admissibility of evidence do not change on a motion for summary judgment.'” (quoting Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 264 (2d Cir. 2009))). I. The Parties

  5. Williams v. City of New York

    19-cv-3347 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2023)   Cited 5 times

    The Second Circuit has held that “convictions over ten years old [should] be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” Scotto v. Brady, 410 Fed.Appx. 355, 360 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Zinman v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 983 F.2d 431, 434 (2d Cir. 1993)). “The court considers the same factors it considers with respect to Rule 609(a), including the impeachment value of the prior conviction, whether credibility is a crucial issue, whether the two crimes are

  6. White Plains Hous. Auth. v. BP Prods. N. Am.

    17-cv-6250 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022)

    United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Scotto v. Brady, 410 Fed.Appx. 355, 361 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether an item of evidence has been properly authenticated, and we review its ruling only for abuse of discretion.”

  7. Casmento v. Volmar Constr.

    20-cv-0944 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2022)   Cited 5 times

    The Second Circuit has held that “convictions over ten years old [should] be admitted very rarely and only in exceptional circumstances.” Scotto v. Brady, 410 Fed.Appx. 355, 360 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zinman v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 983 F.2d 431, 434 (2d Cir. 1993)).

  8. United States v. Ray

    20-cr-110 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2022)

    When convictions that are more than ten years old are introduced for non-impeachment purposes, a court measures admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, whereby evidence is admitted unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, rather than the other way around. See Scotto v. Brady, 410 Fed.Appx. 355, 360 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order). The release from imprisonment here occurred more than a decade ago, but the alleged criminal activity in the Second Superseding Indictment took place over the course of a decade, and Ray was released from his imprisonment shortly before he is alleged to have committed the instant crime.

  9. Hallett v. Stuart Dean Co.

    20-cv-3881 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2021)   Cited 6 times

    A district court "has broad discretion in determining whether an item of evidence has been properly authenticated." United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Scotto v. Brady, 410 F. App'x 355, 361 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (applying the same reasoning in a civil case). "This requirement is satisfied if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification."

  10. Elghourab v. Vista JFK, LLC

    17-cv-911 (ARR) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2018)   Cited 6 times

    In order for documentary evidence such as emails to be admissible, the evidence must first be authenticated, i.e., the party offering the evidence must provide "a rational basis for concluding that an exhibit is what it is claimed to be." See Jay Dees Inc. v. Def. Tech. Sys., Inc., No. 05 Civ. 6954(SAS), 2008 WL 4501652, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008) (quoting United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, 30 (2d Cir. 1992)), aff'd sub nom. Scotto v. Brady, 410 F. App'x 355 (2d Cir. 2010). Emails can be authenticated through direct or circumstantial evidence.