Statistical analysis was presented on behalf of New York City, while conflicting analysis was presented on behalf of Brink's. The Federal District Court jury found Brink's liable for negligence and awarded the City compensatory damages of $1 million for loss of revenues due to theft and $5 million punitive damages. The punitive damage amount was later reduced by the trial judge to $1.5 million. The judge compared the methods of analysis presented by the two sides and said such conflict should be resolved by the jury. Brink's appealed the case, but the appeal was rejected since it was determined that Brink's did not introduce sufficient evidence to explain the discrepancy. The basis for the award and its successful defense on appeal is discussed. 4 references, 1 figure, 1 table. (Author abstract modified)