Full opinion text
UNDERHILL, District Judge: TABLE OF CONTENTS Plaintiffs brought this action under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, claiming that their efforts to develop real estate in Sullivan County, New York, were illegally impeded as a result of the defendants’ operation of the Town of Delaware, New York as a RICO enterprise. Plaintiffs claimed that the action arose out of a conspiracy, plan and scheme among the defendants — an assortment of public officials, private individuals and corporations — to use the Town of Delaware as a racketeering enterprise to extort money, real property and personal property through misuse of certain public offices, in violation of section 1962(c). After pretrial proceedings eliminated a number of defendants, the plaintiffs’ claims against eleven remaining defendants were first tried to a jury between December 10 and December 20,1996, with United States District Judge Barrington D. Parker presiding. The trial resulted in jury verdicts against six defendants. The Court granted motions for judgment as a matter of law in favor of two defendants and, with respect to the remaining four defendants, the Court held that the proof of damages adduced at trial was too speculative and imprecise to support the damages awarded by the jury. Accordingly, Judge Parker granted a new trial on both liability and damages. The case was then retried against the remaining defendants from February 1 to February 9, 1999, with United States District Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding. The second trial again resulted in jury verdicts against the four defendants. Although the Court sustained certain damage awards, Judge Brieant vacated a special verdict of $1.6 million (before trebling) as having “no relation to reality.” This appeal and cross-appeal followed. The defendants appealed, contending that the plaintiffs’ evidence at the second trial was insufficient as to both liability and damages. The plaintiffs’ cross-appeal challenges the Court’s vacatur of the jury’s verdicts at the first trial and, alternatively, the Court’s vacatur of the $1.6 million award at the second trial. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate a $1,000.00 award against the defendant Dirie, but affirm the judgments of the District Court in all other respects. I. THE PARTIES A. The Plaintiffs Plaintiff Top of the World Estates, Inc. (“TOP”) is the owner and developer of approximately 1,450 acres of land in the Town of Delaware in Sullivan County, New York. Located on this property is a residential development known as “Top of the World Estates.” Plaintiff JOBO Associates, Inc. (“JOBO”) owns approximately 250 acres adjoining the TOP property. The JOBO property contains deposits of sand and gravel. The individual plaintiffs, Joseph DeFal-co, Eleanor DeFalco, Robert Brown and Janice Brown are the principal officers, directors and shareholders of both TOP and JOBO. B. The Defendants The defendants are an assortment of public officials, private individuals and corporations from Sullivan County, New York: Defendant William Dirie was the elected Supervisor of the Town of Delaware from January 1986 to December 1991. In that position, Dirie served as a member of the Town Board and as a member of the Town Legislature; Defendant John Bernas is a local contractor and owner of both Defendant JML Quarries, Inc. and Defendant John Bernas, Inc.; Defendant V. Edward" Curtis was the appointed Chairman of the Delaware Planning Board from 1964 to December 1994. At all relevant times, he was also engaged in the nursery and landscaping business; Defendant Alfred Steppich was the appointed Building Inspector of the Town of Delaware from 1986 to 1991; Defendant Richard Ferber was an elected Tax Assessor for the Town of Delaware from 1976 to 1994 and was Chairman of the Delaware Tax Assessors from 1990 to 1994; Defendant Donald Meckle was an elected Tax Assessor for the Town of Delaware from 1978 to 1993 and was Chairman of the Delaware Tax Assessors from 1979 to 1990; Defendant Paul Rouis was the appointed Sullivan County Administrator from 1977 to June 1993; Defendant Terry Kelly was at all relevant times chief engineer of the Town of Delaware; Defendant William Rosen was the appointed Town Attorney for the Town of Delaware from 1986 to December 1991. He was also Sullivan County Attorney from 1988 to 1991; Defendant George Lahm was at all relevant times the Highway Superintendent for the Town of Delaware; and Defendant Harry Fisher was at all relevant times an overseer of the plaintiffs’ business operations as well as a personal acquaintance of William Dirie. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Reading the evidence from the second trial in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could have found the following facts. In May 1987, Joseph DeFalco (“DeFal-co”), a butcher and professional hunter from Long Island, New York, decided to purchase approximately 1,700 acres of land from the Tamax-ack Hunting Club. The property straddled the Town of Delaware and the Town of Cochecton, in Sullivan County, New York. DeFalco and his partner, Robert Brown, and their vives, formed two corporations, Top of the World Estates, Inc. (“TOP”) and JOBO Associates, Inc. (“JOBO”). TOP acquired title to the portion of the property in the Town of Delaware and JOBO acquired title to the smaller portion located in the Town of Cochecton. Although DeFaleo initially intended to use the Tamarack property for hunting, he subsequently decided to develop a small part of it as a residential real estate development known as “Top of the World Estates.” Before the closing of the land purchase, DeFaleo was approached by local resident Harry Fisher (“Fisher”), who told DeFaleo that there were potentially valuable gravel deposits on the JOBO parcel. Shortly thereafter, Fisher paid another visit to DeFaleo, this time with William Dirie (“Dirie”), Supervisor of the Town of Delaware and a local firewood salesman. Dirie introduced himself and informed DeFaleo that Delaware, New York “is not Long Island,” and that “[ajround here in Sullivan County, you got to deal with the local people.” (12:71). Dirie advised DeFaleo that he would help guide DeFaleo “through the muddy waters” of real estate development in the Town of Delaware, so long as DeFaleo followed Dirie’s suggestions. (T2:70). Dirie made some suggestions to DeFaleo at this initial meeting. First, Dirie informed DeFaleo that Fisher was about to retire and he recommended that DeFaleo hire Fisher as a foreman for the real estate development project at $800 per week. It was imperative, however, that Fisher not show the $300 per week as income, so Dirie suggested that DeFaleo pay Fisher by purchasing him a new truck in Fisher’s son’s name and making the loan payments on the truck purchase. Second, Dirie recommended that DeFaleo buy shrubs and other landscaping items from V. Edward Curtis (“Curtis”), a local nursery owner and Chairman of the Delaware Planning Board. Dirie also suggested that DeFaleo, an avid hunter with a televised hunting program, support Tax Assessor Donald Meckle (“Meckle”) by purchasing equipment at Meckle’s sporting goods store. Finally, Dirie suggested that DeFaleo use local resident John Bernas (“Bernas”) to do the road construction at the development and mine the gravel from the JOBO gravel pit. DeFaleo complied with Dirie’s initial suggestions. DeFaleo agreed to hire Fisher as a foreman for the real estate development project, purchased Fisher a new truck in his son’s name, and made loan payments on the truck. DeFaleo also purchased equipment at Meckle’s sporting goods store and hired Bernas to construct the roads at the development. DeFaleo also visited nursery owner and Planning Board Chairman Curtis. Curtis indicated that “things [would] go a lot easier” if DeFaleo were to use a particular landscaping contractor, Ed Matern, who would purchase plants and shrubs from Curtis’ nursery. (T2:74). Later, Curtis also suggested that DeFaleo hire a particular contractor, Jim Glavin, to design the entrance to the development, indicating that DeFaleo should “do it the right way and bring in Galvin [sic]. And if you use these people, everything is going to go smoother.” (T2:82). Plaintiffs intended the TOP development to proceed in four phases. Before Phase I commenced, in August 1987, DeFalco and Bernas met to discuss road construction for the development. Although no written contract was executed, DeFalco and Ber-nas agreed that Bernas’ company John Bernas, Inc. (“JBI”) would construct roads at TOP in exchange for the cost of labor plus a one-third stock interest in JOBO. Bernas was to extract gravel from the JOBO site to use in building the roads at TOP and was additionally entitled to sell any excess sand and gravel removed from JOBO, with any profits from such sales split 50-50 between Bernas and the plaintiffs. As the project progressed, the defendants made additional demands on DeFal-co coupled with a threat of adverse official action on the project. For example, Dirie suggested that DeFalco let Dirie’s son cut timber on the property. When DeFalco resisted and indicated that he intended to bring in a logger to cut timber for himself, Dirie responded, “If you want to go by the Planning Board and you want things to go smooth, you know, this is the way it is in Sullivan County. That’s it.” (T2:97). DeFalco also complied with the defendants’ suggestions to hire particular individuals. At an October 2, 1987 meeting between DeFalco, Brown, Bernas and Sullivan County Administrator, Paul Rouis (“Rouis”), Rouis pulled DeFalco aside and insisted that he be the accountant for the development project and that DeFalco hire a local attorney named Robert Rosen. (T2:113 — 14). Rouis further indicated that he would be making Robert Rosen’s brother and Delaware Town Attorney, William Rosen, the Sullivan County Attorney in January 1988. (T2:114). When DeFalco indicated that he planned to use his son as the accountant for the project and planned to use his son-in-law as the attorney, Rouis stated that “You’re in Sullivan County now. And if you want this development to go, you can’t bring up New Yorkers.” (T2:113-14). DeFalco hired Rouis and Robert Rosen even though he did not want to use them. (T2:114); see also Letter from Joe DeFalco to Robert Rosen dated Oct. 5, 1987 (E:141-42) (“I would like to talk to you about representing TOP OF THE WORLD ESTATES in all transactions that are going to occur in Sullivan County.... I would like you to know that you were highly recommended by Mr. Paul Rouis.”). Each time a demand was made and De-Falco resisted, the defendants used their political power to impede the development or otherwise harm the plaintiffs. Conversely, each time DeFalco complied with a demand, he was “rewarded” by having the development project proceed. For example, following the defendants’ suggestions, DeFalco permitted Dirie, Fisher and others to cut timber and firewood on TOP property. In order to avoid any questions, Dirie insisted that DeFalco run an ad in certain newspapers that De-Falco was offering free firewood. One such advertisement ran June 11, 1988 in the New York Times. (T2:136); see also Pl.’s Ex. 34 (E:158) (New York Times, “Free Oak Firewood” advertisement dated June 11, 1988). The defendants, however, wanted their logging activities to remain exclusive. When DeFalco granted a logging contract for a certain section of the property to the Walezak Lumber Company for a price of $8800, see (E:129-30), Dirie insisted that DeFalco cancel the contract and return the check. When DeFalco protested, Dirie told him “Don’t expect to get your approvals at the Planning Board meeting unless it’s done.” (T2:126). At the next Planning Board meeting, the plaintiffs’ project was suspended for thirty days. (T2:127); see also Pl.’s Ex. 24, Oct. 21, 1987 Planning Board Minutes (E:133-34). The following day, Dirie visited De-Falco at the development and asked whether he “got the message.” (T2:127). DeFalco returned the check and paid a penalty for canceling the contract. (T2:128). DeFalco was further instructed by Tax Assessor Richard Ferber to use his cousin, Ray Ferber, for the logging contract; “[ojtherwise [he was] never going to get approvals.” (T2:128). At the n'ext Planning Board meeting on November 18, 1987, the project was once again allowed to move forward. (T2:130); see also PL’s Ex. 26, Nov. 18, 1987 Planning Board Minutes (E:135-37). Similarly, when DeFalco attempted to fire Fisher and his crew, Rosen warned him against “rocking the cradle,” Dirie told him that he would “scrap the project,” and Rouis stated that DeFalco was “going to have major problems.” (T2:132). Former Town of Delaware Building Inspector Alfred Steppich (“Steppich”) also testified that both Supervisor Dirie and Planning Board Chairman Curtis instructed him at one point to stop issuing building permits for Top of the World. (T2:335). Notwithstanding that neither Dirie nor Curtis was authorized to tell Steppich to stop issuing building permits, Steppich wrote in his personal log: “Called Kathy at Top of the World. Told her no more budding permits to be issued until I got an okay from Bill Dirie and Ed Curtis.” (T2:338-39). As the project progressed, DeFalco complied with other demands made by the defendants. For example, DeFalco gave a set of used truck wheels and tires to Dirie’s son, as demanded by Dirie (T2:152-53). During the course of Bernas’ work on the roads, the Town of Delaware removed gravel from the plaintiffs’ gravel pit free of charge. (T2:162-63). When DeFalco questioned Bernas’ giving free sand and gravel to the Town of Delaware, DeFalco suddenly faced problems with a previously agreed deal regarding plowing and maintenance of the development roads by the Town as well as threats that the Phase I roads either would not be accepted for dedication by the Town or that the dedication process would be delayed. (T2:165-66); see also (E:287-88). In mid-1989, before Phase I was complete, DeFalco approached Bernas about beginning work on the roads for Phase II. Both Bernas and DeFalco, however, wanted to address certain outstanding issues. DeFalco wanted Bernas to give him a detailed breakdown of what materials he had removed, sold or given away from the gravel pit. Bernas wanted resolution of the then outstanding issue of when he would receive the one-third equity interest in JOBO. Over the course of the project, Bernas had been extracting gravel from the JOBO site. Pursuant to the agreement with plaintiffs, Bernas was to provide plaintiffs with accountings of the gravel and other materials removed from the pit. After repeated requests from DeFalco and Brown, Bernas rendered the accountings of materials sold from the JOBO site. See (E:163-71). DeFalco became skeptical of the accuracy of the accountings and insisted that Bernas both refrain from giving away any materials free-of-charge and that he share the profits of any sales with the plaintiffs. Whenever DeFalco broached the topic with Bernas, however, Bernas threatened to get the Town to either stop the project or refuse dedication of the development’s roads. Under DeFalco’s agreement with Ber-nas, DeFalco was not required to turn over the one-third interest in JOBO stock until Bernas had completed twelve miles of roads. (T2:177). By mid-1989, however, DeFalco faced mounting pressure from several defendants with respect to transferring the JOBO stock to Bernas. For example, when issues arose over the transfer of the JOBO stock, Rouis, as the development’s accountant, entered on the project’s financial statements a false entry showing $275,000 payable to Bernas. (T2:179-81). This fraudulent entry purportedly reflected monies owing to Bernas for services in connection with road work on Phase I. Rouis threatened to cause a tax audit of the project unless DeFalco conveyed the JOBO shares to Bernas. When DeFalco pressed his concerns over the gravel pit accounting, Rouis told him to “back off, and that he was going to get involved, and that (DeFalco) should sign ... a third of the gravel pit over now.” (T2:175). DeFalco testified that “Rouis told me straight up and down, like if I don’t sign the stock over, ‘you ain’t seen nothing yet.’ ” (T2:181-82). With respect to the financial statement, DeFalco testified that Rouis “was going to take care of it when the stock was signed over.” (T2:182). Similarly, Dirie threatened adverse official action if DeFalco failed to give Bernas the stock. (T2:178). DeFalco testified thát “Dirie told me straight up and down, ‘you can kiss Phase 2 good-bye, the development good-bye.’” (T2:178). The sudden issues regarding plowing and maintenance of the development’s roads and whether the roads would be accepted for dedication by the Town were also tied to transfer of the JOBO stock. According to DeFalco, with Dirie, “it was always the same story. ‘If you sign over the stock, the problems go away.’ ” (T2:197). Delaware Town Engineer Terry Kelly, Tax Assessor Ferber, Tax Assessor Meckle and Building Inspector Steppich each pressured DeFalco to turn the stock over to Bernas. (T2:183). On several occasions, Dirie and Bernas indicated that, if DeFalco didn’t sign over the stock, the project would be scrapped. (T2:202). DeFalco testified: “I didn’t have a choice. I wanted to get this matter over with.” (T2:201). DeFalco ultimately transferred the one-third interest in the JOBO stock to JBI on December 6, 1989. See Pl.’s Ex. 60, Stock Transfer Agreement dated Dec. 6, 1989 (E:181); PL’s Ex. B31, JOBO Stock Certificate for John Ber-nas, Inc. (E:361). The Phase I roads were thereafter accepted for dedication by the Town. (T2:206); see also Letter from Robert M. Rosen to William Dirie dated Dec. 7,1989 (E:179). After DeFalco signed over the one-third interest in JOBO to Bernas, however, Ber-nas wanted rights to the entire gravel pit, and suddenly the dedication of the Phase I roads was again called into question. (T2:206). At the same time, DeFalco remained concerned with the accountings Bernas had prepared for the gravel pit and instructed Bernas not to mine the JOBO site after December 15, 1989. (T2:208). In March 1990, on DeFalco’s return from a seasonal trip to Florida, however, he found Bernas’ people working to remove material from the JOBO site. (T2:207). DeFalco again directed Bernas to stop work at JOBO and erected physical barriers there. (T2:208 — 12); see also “Cease and Desist Order” Letter from Joe DeFalco to John Bernas, Inc. and JML Quarries dated Mar. 2, 1990 (E:182). On March 15, 1990, De-Falco wrote to Bernas: “I feel that I am always being harassed over this gravel pit. I have no intentions of backing down anymore.” (T2:212); see also Letter from Joe DeFalco to John Bernas, Inc. and JML Quarries dated Mar. 5, 1990 (E:183-84). DeFalco faced mounting pressure from several of the defendants to give Bernas the entire gravel pit. For example, Ber-nas told DeFalco that, if DeFalco did not turn over the gravel pit, “(t)hey were going to close the development down.” (T2:214). When DeFalco resisted giving Bernas the,entire gravel pit, Tax Assessors Ferber and Meckle reassessed certain lots from $20,000 to $45,000 a piece, more than doubling plaintiffs’ taxes. (T2:253). On or about April 2, 1990, the Town of Delaware Planning Board issued a letter listing certain requirements to be completed before final approval would be granted for Phase II. The Planning Board required: (1) a letter from Town Engineer Kelly stating that the roads satisfied certain town requirements; and (2) a letter from the Supervisor of the Town stating that the Town Board was satisfied that the Top of the World Estates had met certain guaranty requirements by posting a surety bond acceptable to the Town Board, as directed by the Town Attorney. (T2:223); see also Town of Delaware Planning Board Letter from V. Edward Curtis to Robert M. Rosen dated Apr. 2, 1990 (E:188; E:317). Only when those requirements were met would the Planning Board “give final approval to Phase 2 of the Top of the World Estates.” (T2:223); see also (E:188; E:317). When DeFalco subsequently spoke with Dirie about the letter and asked Dirie how he could get Phase II approved, Dirie replied, “Give Bernas the gravel pit.” (T2:225). DeFalco never completed Phase II nor sought any approvals from the Town in the years preceding trial. Although he had received conditional final approval for Phase II from the Town Planning Board and was invited to retain another road contractor or, alternatively, to put up a completion bond of $200,000 from a creditworthy bonding company and commence marketing lots in Phase II prior to completion of the roads, DeFalco claimed that he could not get final Town approval of Phase II because he refused to comply with the new demand by Bernas to give him all of the JOBO property. B. Procedural History The initial complaint in this action was filed on September 6, 1990. (JA:9). Pretrial proceedings eliminated a number of defendants, one of whom is pertinent to this appeal. On October 17, 1996, the District Court dismissed the claim against William Rosen as articulated in the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The Court concluded that, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank, 511 U.S. 164, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994), RICO does not provide for aider and abettor liability. Because the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint accused Rosen of aiding and abetting liability, the Court dismissed the case against Rosen for failure to state a claim. 1. The First Trial Plaintiffs’ claims against the eleven remaining defendants were tried before Judge Barrington D. Parker and to a jury between December 10 and December 20, 1996. The jury found that the Town of Delaware had been operated as a RICO enterprise and that six of the defendants had conducted or participated in the affairs of the Town through a pattern of racketeering activity. The jury returned verdicts in favor of the other five defendants. The jury found that each of the six liable defendants committed two or more predicate acts and assessed monetary damages (prior to trebling) as follows: William Dirie $ 250,000 John Bernas $ 500,000 JML Quarries, Inc. $ 500,000 V. Edward Curtis $ 250,000 Paul Rouis $1,000,000 John Bernas, Inc. $ 0 Each of these defendants filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial pursuant to Rules 50(b) and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to Rouis and Curtis, the District Court held that there was insufficient evidence for the trier of fact to have concluded that the predicate acts found to have been committed by them were the proximate cause of harm to plaintiffs’ business or property and, accordingly, their motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) were granted. With respect to the remaining four defendants, however, the Court concluded that the proof of damages adduced at trial was too speculative and imprecise to support the damages awarded by the jury and, because the issues of damages and liability were inextricably intertwined, Dirie, Ber-nas, JML and JBI were entitled to a new trial on both liability and damages. See DeFalco v. Dirie, 978 F.Supp. 491, 500 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (Plaintiffs’ “wide ranging and vague theories of RICO injury created a substantial likelihood that the jury’s award was based on something other than adequate proof.”). 2. Unconsummated Sales Opportunities and the October 15, 1998 Order The evidence presented at the first trial included DeFalco’s unsuccessful attempts to sell certain portions of the project to two entities known as Tri Sec and Valente in 1989. Plaintiffs’ theory that the defendants were responsible for frustrating the Tri Sec and Valente deals was set forth in their post-trial brief: The evidence .established that [DeFalco] at one point, received an offer to sell [the] property (including the JOBO gravel pit) to an entity called Tri Sec for an aggregate purchase price of $8.3 million [Tr.12/11, p. 342-343; Tr.12/12, p. 485]. The gravel pit itself was to be sold for $2,000,000.00 [Ex. C & D-51; Ex. B-25]. Rouis, however, upon learning of that, threatened to have the Town of Delaware take detrimental action regarding road dedications at [DeFalco’s] development if DeFalco went ahead with his plans to sell the gravel pit to TriSee .... Thus, Rouis’ extortionate infusion [sic] as accountant for [DeFalco’s] development project resulted in his ability to (1) know of the prospective sale to Tri-Sec; and (2) threaten the further misuse of his public office and control of the enterprise to cause the sale not to take place [Tr.12/11, p. 350]. The result was that Rouis “killed” the deal [Tr.12/12, p. 485]. Clearly, the fact that [DeFalco] would lose the profits from that transaction were foreseeable when Rouis acted in the manner that he did. Rouis’ actions just in this regard wrere sufficient to support the jury’s damage award against him. The evidence also established that the defendants (including Rouis) pressured DeFalco into not making another deal to sell a portion of the property [Tr.12/11, p. 352-356]. This deal was with Louie Valente who agreed to purchase the gravel pit and another 800 acres of [De-Falco’s] land ... for a purchase price of $6 million [Tr.12/11, p. 353-354], Va-lente and DeFalco entered into a letter agreement for that sale, and Valente tendered a $5,000.00 deposit [Tr.12/11, p. 353]. Again, because of Rouis’ predicate acts of compelling [DeFalco] to convey JOBO stock to Bernas, Bernas was placed in a position of being able to take action intended to “kill” this deal as well, which Bernas intentionally did [Tr.12/11, p. 355]. Again, the damages flowing from that (i.e., the loss to [DeFalco] of the profit that [he] would have made from this deal) was clearly foreseeable, (sic) (Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Post Trial Motion by Defendant Paul Rouis, ¶¶ 22-24.) DeFalco v. Dirie, 978 F.Supp. 491, 498 (S.D.N.Y.1997). In ruling on certain post-trial motions, however, the Court held that this theory was analytically inadequate because “neither the retention of Rouis as the Project’s accountant nor the transfer of one-third of the shares of JOBO to Bernas could be reasonably concluded to have been the proximate cause of any lost profits from unconsummated sales opportunities. There was no direct relationship between the plaintiffs’ injury and the defendants’ injurious conduct.” DeFalco, 978 F.Supp. at 498. The Court stated that: Common experience teaches that real estate developments are inherently speculative and that myriad factors — foreseen and unforeseen — can frustrate their completion. DeFalco’s proof at trial of the two inchoate land deals was insufficient. There was no testimony to indicate that either of the deals had progressed to the point where any enforceable obligations had been created. No written agreement between DeFalco and Valente was produced at trial. A two page agreement with Tri-Sec was introduced but it was no more than a preliminary document. It contained none of the provisions customarily found in a formal commitment to convey land, much less the sorts of provisions essential to a large, complex real estate transaction of the sort DeFalco claims was contemplated. Moreover, the trial testimony conclusively showed that the purported Tri-Sec agreement was signed not by the purchaser but by DeFalco’s secretary. As a result, the proffered documentation did not satisfy the New York Statute of Frauds. DeFalco, 978 F.Supp. at 499 (citing N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-703(2) (McKinney 1989)). The Court also noted that “DeFalco paid approximately $960,000 for the land in 1987 and claims to have lost the opportunity to sell the land for approximately $7,300,000 in 1989. However, at the time of the trial DeFalco still owned the land. Consequently, the critical issue was not simply the purchase price for the land, or the value of the contract said to have been frustrated. DeFalco was also obligated to offer satisfactory evidence of the market value of the land at the time of trial. No such evidence was adduced.” Id. at 499 n. 3. With respect to the unconsummated sales opportunities, the Court concluded that: There was no evidence offered at trial to establish adequately the existence of an agreement with respect to either transaction whose consummation DeFalco claims were thwarted. Moreover, there was no adequate proof that the conduct of the defendants actually interfered with either of these purported deals. Assuming, arguendo, that DeFalco had entered into purchase and sale agreements, and that the defendants illegally impeded their completion, DeFalco’s evidence of any RICO damages was far too speculative and uncertain. Id. at 499-500. The Court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs’ evidence of RICO damages alleged to have been incurred as a consequence of DeFalco’s inability to consummate the Tri-Sec and Va-lente real estate transactions was highly speculative and legally insufficient. With this problem in mind, on May 1, 1998, the Court directed counsel for the plaintiffs to supply an affidavit informing the Court what evidence of the Tri Sec and Valente deals would be offered at the second trial that was not offered at the first. The plaintiffs were also instructed “to append to the affidavit or otherwise clearly identify any documentation that would be offered at trial to establish that the deals existed and that they were frustrated by the conduct of the defendants.” See Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 15, 1998 (Parker, J.) at 2 (JA:614). In response, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted an affirmation regarding damages dated June 25, 1998. (JA:573-82). The affirmation indicated that, at the second trial, the plaintiffs intended to offer essentially the same proof with respect to the Valente and Tri Sec deals that was offered at the first trial. See Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 15, 1998 at 2 (JA:614). In an October 15, 1998 decision, the Court held that: This Court has carefully considered the evidence proffered and concludes that it is still too speculative, conjectural and contingent to serve [as] a predicate for the possible imposition of RICO damages. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Company, Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985); Holmes v. SIPC, 503 U.S. 258, 112 S.Ct. 1311, 117 L.Ed.2d 532 (1992) and Norman v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 873 F.2d 634 (2d Cir.1989). As the first trial of this action demonstrates, in a RICO jury trial, the danger of massive damage awards based on factors other than adequate proof of RICO injury is a source of potentially serious prejudice. Norman at 636. In view of this Court’s experience with plaintiffs [sic] proof with respect to the Valente and Tri Sec deals, this Court would exclude at retrial such evidence pursuant to Rule 403 Fed.R.Evid. since its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effects. Independent of this conclusion, this Court grants defendants’ motion in li-mine with respect to the Valente and Tri-See transactions. For the reasons set forth herein and in this Court’s opinion of September 26, 1997, this Court concludes that such evidence should also be excluded as too speculative and conjectural. Id. at 2-3 (JA614-15). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ proffered evidence regarding the unconsummated Valente and Tri Sec deals was ordered excluded at the second trial. S. The Second Trial The remaining issues were thereafter retried against Dirie, Bernas, JBI and JML from February 1 to February 9, 1999 with Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding. The jury at the second trial returned verdicts against all four defendants. With respect to Dirie, the jury found that, as RICO predicate acts, Dirie: (1) extorted from the plaintiffs the value of the services of Harry Fisher; (2) extorted timber and firewood from the plaintiffs for his own benefit, and separately for the benefit of Ray Ferber; (3) extorted from the plaintiffs one-third of the shares of JOBO for the benefit of JBI; and (4) extorted from the plaintiffs two truck wheels and tires for the benefit of Dirie’s son. The jury also found that, by means of the RICO enterprise, John Bernas and JBI extorted from the plaintiffs one-third of the shares of JOBO and a substantial amount of sand and/or gravel from the gravel pit on the JOBO property. As to JML, the jury found that it, too, had extorted sand and/or gravel from the JOBO gravel pit. The jury, answering special interrogatories, assessed monetary damages (prior to trebling) as follows. As to Dirie, the jury found damages with respect to the services of Harry Fisher to be $20,251.91. The jurors found no damages for the timber or firewood that Dirie obtained; $12,300.00 for the timber extorted for the benefit of Ray Ferber; and $1,000.00 for the track wheels and tires. As to John Bernas, and both of his corporations, JBI and JML, jointly and severally, the jury found they had extorted sand and gravel worth $250,000.00. The jury awarded $1.6 million as damages in addition to the damages described in answers to specific interrogatories. Those damages were attributed to the defendants’ participation in the conduct of the affairs of the Town of Delaware through a pattern of racketeering activity, and were in addition to the value of one-third of the shares of the stock of JOBO, as to which the Court had reserved decision whether to require specific equitable restitution. Finally, the jury found that Bernas, JBI and JML obtained $45,000.00 worth of sand and/or gravel by conversion, and that Bernas, JBI and JML extorted from plaintiffs the shares of JOBO by conversion and fraud. On motions to set aside all or part of the jury verdict, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, the Court noted that: For the second time in this Court a jury has held unanimously that the plaintiffs have proved that the Town of Delaware was conducted as a RICO enterprise which affected interstate commerce, and that all the defendants on trial before it conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the Town through a pattern of racketeering activity, namely William Dirie, John Bernas, John Ber-nas, Inc. and JML Quarries, Inc., and probably others. See Memorandum and Order dated May 17, 1999 (Brieant, J.) (JA:877). The Court added that it had no fault to find with the jury verdict in general. The granting of a new trial should be done sparingly, and a court must respect the findings of a trial jury. This is especially true when a different jury in a prior trial has reached a very similar result. Id. (JA:880). Although the Court noted that the $1,600,000.00 figure “corresponds very closely to the general damages awarded in the first trial before Judge Parker in the amount of $2,500,000.00, at which the Va-lente and Trisec evidence had been received,” id. (JA:879), the Court granted the defendants’ motions to the extent of vacating the special verdict award of $1.6 million. The Court explained that: [W]e are constrained to conclude from the trial record that there is simply insufficient credible evidence of any kind of damages directly flowing from the predicate acts which the jury found, other than as specifically found in the separate interrogatories regarding damages for those predicate acts. Accordingly, the damage award of $1,600,000 ... simply has no relation to reality. As Judge Parker already found, it is far from clear that the cessation of activity at the land development site of Top of the World, Inc., was attributable entirely to the criminality of the defendants, and plaintiffs are still left in full ownership of their land. This Court can only conclude that the unfolding of the whole sordid story of the relationships between the Town of Delaware officials and its parallel twilight government which included these defendants and numerous others, so inflamed the passions of our jury that they found damages beyond those which were actually proved at the trial. There is no reason to believe that the plaintifffs] could present any more direct or any better evidence to support this non-specific damage claim, were this Court to order a third trial. With some regret, the Court concludes that it must vacate that much of the jury’s award in the amount of $1,600,000.00 ... and grant judgment on that issue in favor of defendants notwithstanding the verdict. In all other respects the verdict is well justified by the proof at trial. Id. (JA880). The Court sustained the other damages awards: (1) $250,000 (before trebling) against the Bernas defendants, based upon a predicate act of extortion of sand and gravel mined from the JOBO property; and (2) a total of $33,551.94 (before trebling) against Dirie for extortion of firewood or timber; the used truck wheels and tires for his son; and the pickup truck for Harry Fisher. See Final Judgment dated May 17,1999 (JA:874-75). The trial court also required JBI to deliver its one-third of the outstanding shares in JOBO Associates, Inc. to the plaintiffs, based upon the jury’s finding that those shares were extorted and plaintiffs’ election to recover the shares in lieu of monetary damages. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. III. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “A court of appeals reviews a district court’s decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same standards as the district court to determine whether judgment as a matter of law was appropriate.” Merrill Lynch Interfunding, Inc. v. Argenti, 155 F.3d 113, 120 (2d Cir.1998); Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Andy Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir.1997); Katara v. D.E. Jones Commodities, Inc., 835 F.2d 966, 970 (2d Cir.1987). Under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, judgment as matter of law is appropriate where “there is no legally sufficient evi-dentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for” a party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). In ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court “must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-movant and grant that party every reasonable inference that the jury might have drawn in its favor.” Samuels v. Air Transport Local 501, 992 F.2d 12, 16 (2d Cir.1993). A district court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial will be reversed only if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. Atkins v. New York City, 143 F.3d 100, 102 (2d Cir.1998); Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911 (2d Cir.1997). “A motion for a new trial ordinarily should not be granted unless the trial court is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice.” Lightfoot, 110 F.3d at 911 (internal notations and quotations omitted). We now review the district courts’ decisions in light of these well established standards. B. Elements of a RICO Claim To establish a RICO claim, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a violation of the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962; (2) an injury to business or property; and (3) that the injury was caused by the violation of Section 1962.” Pinnacle Consultants, Ltd. v. Leucadia Nat’l Corp., 101 F.3d 900, 904 (2d Cir.1996) (citing First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp., 27 F.3d 763, 767 (2d Cir.1994)). Section 1962(c), the section relevant here, makes it unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.... To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) then, a plaintiff must show “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985); Cofacredit, S.A v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co. Inc., 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir.1999); Azrielli v. Cohen Law Offices, 21 F.3d 512, 520 (2d Cir.1994). The requirements of section 1962(c) must be established as to each individual defendant. See United States v. Persico, 832 F.2d 705, 714 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1995, 100 L.Ed.2d 227 (1988) (“The focus of section 1962(c) is on the individual patterns of racketeering engaged in by a defendant, rather than the collective activities of the members of the enterprise, which are proscribed by section 1962(d).”). The terms “enterprise,” “racketeering activity,” and “pattern of racketeering activity” are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961. A RICO enterprise “includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). “Racketeering activity” is broadly defined to encompass a variety of state and federal offenses including, inter alia, murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery and extortion. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). A “ ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years ... after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Although at least two predicate acts must be present to constitute a pattern, two acts alone will not always suffice to form a pattern. See Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275 (“The implication is that while two acts are necessary, they may not be sufficient.”); see also United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370, 1382 (2d Cir.1989) (“The legislative history is ... inconsistent with a rule that any two acts of racketeering activity, without more, suffice to establish a RICO pattern.”). In short, to establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a plaintiff must establish that a defendant, through the commission of two or more acts constituting a pattern of racketeering activity, directly or indirectly participated in an enterprise, the activities of which affected interstate or foreign commerce. See, e.g., Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985); Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied sub nom. Moss v. Newman, 465 U.S. 1025, 104 S.Ct. 1280, 79 L.Ed.2d 684 (1984). We take up each of the RICO elements at issue below. 1. The Town of Delaware as a RICO Enterprise Dirie claims that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the Town of Delaware was a RICO enterprise and that the plaintiffs failed to establish an enterprise separate from the individual defendants. The plaintiffs argue that an enterprise may be organized for a legitimate and lawful purpose and may include such things as a municipality or town or a subdivision thereof. As noted above, the RICO statute defines an “enterprise” as “including] any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). The enterprise “is an entity, ... a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.” United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981). A racketeering enterprise is proven through “evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.” Id.; see United States v. Morales, 185 F.3d 74, 80 (2d Cir.1999). Thus, evidence of an ongoing organization, the associates of which function as a continuing unit, suffices to prove an enterprise. See Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524; Procter & Gamble Co. v. Big Apple Industrial Buildings, Inc., 879 F.2d 10, 15 (2d Cir.1989). Under section 1962(c), a defendant and the enterprise must be distinct. Indeed, “[i]t is well established in this Circuit that, under § 1962(c), the alleged RICO ‘person’ and RICO ‘enterprise’ must be distinct.” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 219 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam) (footnotes omitted) (citing Anatian v. Coutts Bank (Switzerland) Ltd., 193 F.3d 85, 89 (2d Cir.1999); Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339, 343-45 (2d Cir.1994); Bennett v. U.S. Trust Co., 770 F.2d 308, 315 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058, 106 S.Ct. 800, 88 L.Ed.2d 776 (1986)). In Rivenvoods, this Court applied the distinctness requirement to hold that a bank — the RICO enterprise and the sole defendant — could not be liable under section 1962(c) when the RICO persons identified were the bank and bank employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court later explained that “the distinctness requirement could not be circumvented ‘by alleging a RICO enterprise that consists merely of a corporate defendant associated with its own employees or agents carrying on the regular affairs of the defendant.’ ” Cedric Kushner Promotions, 219 F.3d at 116 (quoting Riverwoods, 30 F.3d at 344). Because a corporation can only function through its employees and agents, any act of the corporation can be viewed as an act of such an enterprise, and the enterprise is in reality no more than the defendant itself. Thus, where employees of a corporation associate together to commit a pattern of predicate acts in the course of their employment and on behalf of the corporation, the employees in association with the corporation do not form an enterprise distinct from the corporation. Riverwoods, 30 F.3d at 344 (citation omitted). Notably, the Court stated that “the plain language of section 1962(c) clearly envisions separate entities, and the distinctness requirement comports with legislative intent and policy.” Riverwoods, 30 F.3d at 344 (citing Bennett, 770 F.2d at 315). “This requirement focuses the section on the culpable party and recognizes that the enterprise itself is often a passive instrument or victim of the racketeering activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The requirement of distinctiveness between the defendants and the enterprise, however, was met here. The jury could reasonably have concluded that the RICO persons — Dirie, Bernas, JBI and JML — were a separate and distinct assortment of public officials, private individuals and corporations who used them political power to influence the Town of Delaware’s exercise of governmental authority over the plaintiffs’ development. From the evidence adduced at trial, there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the named defendants were separaté, culpable parties and that the alleged enterprise, the Town of Delaware, was the “passive instrument or victim of [their] racketeering activity.” Id. Moreover, this Court has previously held that a governmental unit can be a RICO enterprise. See United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 30-35 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910, 945, 102 S.Ct. 1258, 1442, 71 L.Ed.2d 449, 657 (1982). In Angelilli, the defendants were four of approximately eighty New York City marshals appointed by the Mayor of the City of New York as officers of the City’s Civil Court. The marshals were charged with mail fraud in a scheme to auction judgment debtors’ property at artificially deflated prices. Prior to an auction, the marshals would meet with certain buyers and determine: (1) a deflated price at which property would ostensibly be sold and (2) the amount over the agreed sales price that would be paid to the marshals in return (“top money”). The marshals retained the “top money” and subsequently mailed to judgment creditors amounts reflecting the fraudulently deflated prices. The enterprise in whose activities the marshals were alleged to have participated in a pattern of racketeering activity was the New York City Civil Court. In concluding that the New York City Civil Court was an enterprise within the meaning of RICO, this Court first noted that, under the language of the statute: “the definition of ‘enterprise’ is quite broad. We see no sign of an intention by Congress to exclude governmental units from its scope.” Id. at 31. In reviewing the language of RICO, the Court concluded that, “on its face the definition of an enterprise to ‘include any ... legal entity’ is unambiguously broad, and that it does not exclude the Civil Court.” Id. That conclusion was bolstered by certain of RICO’s substantive goals, some of which are specifically directed toward governmental entities. Id. Recognizing that “racketeering activity” is defined in section 1961(1) to include bribery and extortion, the Court noted that “bribery is ‘a crime which is peculiar to public officials,’ ” and “[ejxtortion under color of law is a crime which ‘can only be committed in the context of governmental activity.’ ” Id. at 31-32 (citations omitted). By making bribery and extortion RICO offenses, Congress must be said to have understood that these offenses would be committed by governmental officials as a part of their work. Since these offenses can only be committed in the context of the work of a government agency, Congress must be taken to have intended that a governmental agency could be one of the types of “enterprises,” the affairs of which are conducted through a pattern of racketeering offenses. Id. at 32 (quoting United States v. Sisk, 476 F.Supp. 1061, 1062 (M.D.Tenn.1979)). Thus, “[t]he connection between the named offenses of bribery and extortion and governmental work is too close to say that government work is not one of the kinds of activity that may constitute a RICO ‘enterprise.’ ” Id. The interpretation of the language of the statute to extend to activities affecting governmental entities is supported by the purpose and legislative history of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (“the Act”), Pub.L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, of which RICO is Title IX. Angelilli, 660 F.2d at 32-33. Both the purpose and legislative history of the Act reflect “concern about the infiltration of local government units.” Id. at 32. Accordingly, “the language of section 1961(4), defining enterprise, ... unambiguously encompass[es] governmental units, and ... the purpose and history of the Act and the substance of RICO’s provisions demonstrate a clear congressional intent that RICO be interpreted to apply to activities that corrupt public or governmental entities.” Id. at 33 (citing cases). The analysis in Angelilli applies with equal force to this case. Throughout this action, the only enterprise alleged by the plaintiffs was the Town of Delaware, and the jury specifically found that the Town of Delaware was a RICO enterprise. See Special Verdict Form, Question 1 at 1 (JA:629); see also (T2:1200). Based upon the evidence admitted at trial, the jury could reasonably have concluded that the Town of Delaware’s grant or denial of approval for aspects of the plaintiffs’ development was conditioned upon complying with the demands of Dirie, the Town Supervisor, and others with influence. As with the New York City Civil Court in Angelilli, the jury here could have reasonably found that the Town of Delaware was a “passive instrument” through which the defendants wielded power for their personal benefit and, accordingly, was a RICO enterprise. 2. Interstate Commerce Dirie argues that the plaintiffs offered little, if any, proof of a material impact on interstate commerce of either the enterprise or the RICO predicate crimes. We disagree. The law in this Circuit does not require RICO plaintiffs to show more than a minimal effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Barton, 647 F.2d 224, 233 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 857, 102 S.Ct. 307, 70 L.Ed.2d 152 (1981) (“In determining what connections with interstate commerce must be proven ... to establish a violation of § 1962, the courts have ruled that the impact need not be great. So long as the activities of the enterprise affect interstate commerce, the jurisdictional element is satisfied.”) (collecting cases). Here, one of the extortionate demands caused DeFalco to break an $8800 contract with the Walczak Lumber Company, an out-of-state logger located in Clifford, Pennsylvania. (T2: 125-29); (E:129-30). There was also testimony by the Clerk of the Town of Delaware that the regular business of the Town affected interstate commerce. (T2:579-83). Accordingly, Dirie’s contention that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the activities of the enterprise affected interstate commerce is ■without merit. 3. Participation in the Conduct of the Town’s Affairs Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful “for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise ... to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity....” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “to participate ... in the conduct of [the] enterprise’s affairs” to mean participation in the operation or management of the enterprise. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 185, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993). Both Dirie and the Bernas defendants argue that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that they conducted the affairs of the Town and that their conduct met the “operation or management” test. We disagree. In Reves, when assessing the RICO liability of an outside accounting firm for racketeering activity carried on by its client, the Supreme Court addressed the question “whether one must participate in the operation or management of the enterprise itself to be subject to liability under this provision.” Id. at 172, 113 S.Ct. 1163. The Supreme Court examined Section 1962(c) and adopted an “operation or management” test to determine whether a defendant had sufficient connection to the enterprise to warrant imposing liability. Id. at 178-79, 113 S.Ct. 1163. The Court held that, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise’s affairs, “one must have some part in directing those affairs.” Id. at 179, 113 S.Ct. 1163. The Court stated that “the word ‘participate’ makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility, just as the phrase ‘directly or indirectly’ makes clear that RICO liability is not limited to those with a formal position in the enterprise....” Id. The jury specifically found that Dirie, Bernas, JML and JBI each “conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the Town of Delaware through a pattern of racketeering activity,” see Special Verdict Form, Question 3 at 2 (JA:630); (T2:1200-01), and the record here contains ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found that Dirie and the Ber-nas defendants each had some part in directing the Town of Delaware’s affairs. Dirie was the elected Supervisor of the Town of Delaware from January 1986 to December 1991. In this position, Dirie served as a member of the Town Board and as a member of the Town Legislature. There was evidence at trial that Dirie offered to help guide DeFalco “through the muddy waters” of real estate development in the Town of Delaware, so long as De-Falco followed Dirie’s suggestions. (T2:70). There was also evidence that, when DeFalco resisted Dirie’s suggestions, Dirie used his authority within the Town of Delaware to affect the plaintiffs’ development. For example, when DeFalco resisted Dirie’s suggestion that DeFalco let Dirie’s son cut timber on the property, Dirie responded, “If you want to go by the Planning Board and you want things to go smooth, you know, this is the way it is in Sullivan County. That’s it.” (T2:97). When DeFalco granted a logging contract to a lumber company for $8800, see (E:129-30), Dirie insisted that DeFalco cancel the contract and return the check. When DeFalco resisted, Dirie told him “Don’t expect to get your approvals at the Planning Board meeting unless it’s done.” (T2:126). At the next Planning Board meeting on Oct. 21, 1987, DeFalco’s project was suspended for thirty days (T2:127); see also Pl.’s Ex. 24, Oct. 21, 1987 Planning Board Minutes (E:133-34). The following day, Dirie visited DeFalco at the development and asked whether he “got the message.” (T2:127). DeFalco returned the check and paid a penalty for canceling the contract. (T2:128). At the next Planning Board meeting on November 18, 1987, the project was once again allowed to move forward. (T2:130); see also Pl.’s Ex. 26, Nov. 18, 1987 Planning Board Minutes (E:135-37). Similarly, when DeFalco attempted to fire Fisher and his crew, Dirie told DeFalco that he would “scrap the project.” (T2:132). Dirie also instructed Town of Delaware Building Inspector Alfred Steppich to stop issuing building permits for Top of the World. (T2:335). Dirie also threatened adverse official action if DeFalco failed to give Bernas the JOBO stock. (T2:178). DeFalco testified that “Dirie told me straight up and down, ‘[y]ou can kiss Phase 2 good-bye.’ ” (T2:178). The sudden issues regarding plowing and maintenance of the development’s roads and whether the roads would be accepted for dedication by the Town were also tied to transfer of the JOBO stock. According to DeFalco, with Dirie, “it was always the same story. ‘If you sign over the stock, the problems go away.’” (T2:197). Dirie also influenced the Town of Delaware tax assessments for the plaintiffs’ development. For example, Tax Assessor Richard Ferber testified that, notwithstanding that the Town Supervisor and the Town Board had no role in tax assessments, there were several conversations with Dirie and others, off the record and outside of official Town Board meetings, regarding the Top of the World taxes. (T2:614 — 19). In short, there was ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Dirie participated in the operation or management of the Town of Delaware. Indeed, there was more than enough evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to conclude that Dirie had more than just “some part in directing those affairs.” Reves, 607 U.S. at 179, 113 S.Ct. 1163 (emphasis added). Similarly, a reasonable jury could have found that the Bernas defendants participated in the operation or management of the Town of Delaware. Although the Bernas defendants had no official role in the operation or management of the Town, “RICO liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise’s affairs, ... [or] limited to those with a formal position in the enterprise .... ” Id. “An enterprise also might be ‘operated’ or ‘managed’ by others ‘associated with’ the enterprise who exert control over it as, for example, by bribery.” Id. at 184, 113 S.Ct. 1163. There was ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Bernas played some part in directing the affairs of the Town. For example, when DeFalco complained about Bernas giving free sand and gravel to the Town of Delaware, DeFalco suddenly faced problems with a previously agreed deal regarding plowing and maintenance of the development roads by the Town as well as threats that the Phase I roads either would not be accepted for dedication by the Town or that the dedication process would be delayed. (T2:165-66). Although the Town was prepared to accept the roads in October 1988, see Sullivan County Board of Supervisors Letter from William Dirie dated Oct. 17, 1988 (E:287), in December 1988 Bernas sought to delay the dedication of the roads to the Town until they met his standards. See Letter from John Bernas to Robert M. Rosen dated Dee. 9, 1988, showing courtesy copies to William Dirie and Joseph DeFalco (E:288). Bernas also threatened adverse official action from the Town of Delaware if De-Falco did not give him the JOBO