Appeals Court Asked to Reverse Jury Verdict Finding No Evidence of Wrongdoing by WCC & Faculty
Keith Thomas enrolled in Westchester Community College in the fall of 2011 and soon after began to play for the WCC men’s basketball team. In October 2013, WCC received an anonymous email alleging that Tyrone Mushatt, the head coach of the WCC men’s basketball team, had altered the academic transcripts of his players to help them transfer to other colleges. WCC investigated the allegations in the email and found no evidence of wrongdoing. Prior to the start of the 2014/2015 academic year, Thomas applied to transfer to St. John’s University and was accepted and offered an athletic scholarship. In October 2014, WCC discovered that Mushatt had transmitted forged transcripts to colleges on behalf of players on the WCC men’s basketball team, and that those transcripts misrepresented the credits earned by those players and thus their eligibility status. As part of this fraud, Mushatt directly transmitted a forged transcript on behalf of the Thomas to SJU, which falsely represented that he had earned an associate’s degree at WCC and was thus eligible to play basketball at SJU. In November 2014, SJU determined that Thomas’ application for admission contained material misrepresentations and cancelled his admission.
In 2015, Thomas commenced an action against the County of Westchester and the Faculty Student Association of Westchester Community College, Inc. alleging that they were negligent in their supervision and retention of Mushatt, as they failed to discover his fraud despite receiving notice in an email in October 2013. After a jury trial on the issue of liability, the jury found that the County and FSA were negligent in their supervision and retention of Mushatt due to their failure to discover his fraud after receiving the anonymous email in October 2013, and that such negligence was a substantial factor in causing Thomas’ damages.
The County and FSA separately moved to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. In an order dated July 31, 2020, Supreme Court granted those branches of the separate motions, determining that there was no valid line of reasoning supporting the jury’s findings that FSA was negligent or that any negligence on the part of FSA or the County was a substantial factor in causing Thomas’ damages. Thomas appealed and the County cross-appealed..
The cross-appeal was dismissed because the County was not aggrieved by the order appealed from. The County contended on its cross-appeal that Supreme Court should have granted the branch of its motion on the ground that there was no valid of line of reasoning supporting the jury’s finding that the County was negligent. However, the court ultimately granted that branch of the County’s motion, and the County was not aggrieved merely because it disagreed with the particular findings, rationale or the opinion supporting a judgment or order. The issues raised on the cross-appeal were considered as alternative grounds for affirmance.
A motion to set aside a jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law will be granted where there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. In considering such a motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. A jury verdict must be based on more than mere speculation or guesswork.
Supreme Court properly granted that branch of FSA’s motion to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint. . FSA had no duty to investigate the allegations in the October 2013 email, and therefore, there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could rationally have concluded that FSA was negligent in supervising or retaining Mushatt based on the investigation of the allegations in the October 2013 email, or that its alleged negligence was a substantial factor in causing Thomas’ damages. The court also properly granted that branch of the County’s motion to set aside the jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint. There was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could rationally have concluded that the County’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Thomas’ damages, as it is undisputed that the he was not academically eligible to play basketball for SJU.