
    Roger LEVANS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
    16-2964-cv
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 2, 2017
    
      FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Alexander T. Coleman, (Caitlin A, McNaughton, Michael J. Borrelli, on the brief), Bor-relli & Associates, P.L.L.C., Great Neck, NY.
    FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Michael Crowley, (Brian P. Morrissey, on the brief), Connell Foley LLP, New York, NY.
    PRESENT: Jon 0. Newman, José A. Cabranes, Gerard E, Lynch, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) appeals the judgment of the district court. On that appeal Delta seeks review of the district court’s denial of Delta’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and the granting of Delta’s motion for remittitur.

On appeal, Delta argues, among other things: (1) that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence as a matter of law; (2) that the district court should not have allowed the case to go to the jury on a theory of res ipsa loquitur because Delta’s contractor did not have sufficiently exclusive control over the luggage; (3) that the district court improperly instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur and failed to instruct the jury that Delta could not be liable for criminal acts of its employees; (4) that certain news articles and deposition testimony were improperly admitted and that Plaintiffs counsel commented improperly during summation; and (5) that the district court did not sufficiently reduce the jury’s award for pain and suffering, as reduced after Plaintiffs acceptance of re-mittitur, because it deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough opinion, we hold these claims to be without merit. We have considered all of the arguments raised by Delta and, upon our independent review of the record, we hold that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  