Epstein Secrets

d privilege. See, e.g., Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713 (N.Y. 2015) (affirming motion to dismiss based on pre-litigation qualified privilege); Orenstein v. Figel, 677 F.Supp.2d 706, 722 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc., v. McNulty, 669 F.Supp.2d 405, 415-16 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). While concedi

ss statements, giving all the particulars of their origination," (Pl.'s Opp'n at 19), the Complaint shows otherwise. This alone warrants dismissal. Dillon, 261 A.D.2d at 39-40 (dismissing defamation claim absent entire subject statement, noting "the defect is all the more curious in that [plaintiff] co

f a defamation claim," a Court may properly dismiss a defamation such a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) where a qualified privilege is established. Orenstein v. Figel, 677 F.Supp.2d 706, 711 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); see also Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. McNulty, 669 F.Supp.2d 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Ms. Maxwell'

Merrill Lynch & Co., 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 10017 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) 13 Deutsche Asset Mgmt, Inc. v. Callaghan, No. 01 Civ 4426 CBM, 2004 WL 758303 16 Dillon v. City of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5 (1st Dep't 1999) 8,18 Edwards v. Great Northern Ins. Co., No. 03 CV 2947 (NG) (RML), 2006 WL 2053717, (E.D.

victims of serious crimes the right to restitution. *°* Reinforcing those laws, the CVRA guarantees that victims have "the right 43 Magistrate Judge Orenstein of the Eastern District of New York, who has written many thoughtful opinions on the CVRA, has taken a contrary position. See Report and Recommendati

g, in a criminal case, that lawyers implicitly consent to be appointed by courts pro bono when accepting a license to practice law); United States v. Dillon, 346 F.2d 633, 635-36 (9th Cir. 1965) (holding, in a criminal case, that there is "an obligation on the part of the legal profession to represent ind