Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAINBOW DBS HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered March 12, 2007, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiff damages in the total amount of $52,158,762.27, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered April 5, 2007, which denied defendants' motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 2, 2007, denying defendants' motion to vacate or correct the judgment on the ground that it was improperly entered against defendant Cablevision Systems Corporation, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.
The court properly declined to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence as it is apparent that based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence (see McDermott v. Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 195, 206, 777 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2004] ), the jury could have reasonably determined that defendants sold “substantially all” of the assets of Rainbow DBS so as to trigger their obligation to plaintiff under the “make whole payment” provision in the parties' 2001 Letter Agreement. The court's jury instruction as to the definition of “substantially all” of the assets was appropriate, consistent with the law (see Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 691 F.2d 1039, 1049 [1982], cert. denied 460 U.S. 1012, 103 S.Ct. 1253, 75 L.Ed.2d 482 [1983] ), and did not prejudice defendants. Nor is there a basis upon which to set aside the verdict based upon the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 19, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)