Epstein Secrets

pt the relevant rule of New York landlord-tenant law for purposes of deciding the remaining issue in this dis- pute, and hold that, consistent with New York law, OFM was entitled to arbitrarily withhold its consent to Epstein's request to sublet the Premises to Fisher. Even assum- ing OFM had a hidden a

d in part and denied in part. I. Federal Courts .3=409 In diversity action, federal court sitting in New York must apply New York law, including New York's choice-of-law rules. 2. Contracts e=s144 Under New York's choice-of-law rules, when court is construing meaning of con- tract, court should apply

t may not be introduced to create ambiguity. Arthur M. Handler, Whitman & Ransom, New York City, for plaintiff. Elliot Silverman, Cold & Wachtel, New York City, for defendant. ORDER CONBOY, District Judge: We have before us an action for breach of contract. Plaintiff Michael R. Stroll ("Stroll") see

y prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." /d. (citing Scheuer I Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73

parties' written and oral arguments, I will deny the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to transfer this case to New York. Further, I find that the amended complaint adequately states claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Finally, I will g

claims, and instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to determine whether the plaintiffs have stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. New York's 'Martin Act Does Not Apply to this Lawsuit The defendants aver that the Martin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plainti

ly prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to offer evidence in support of their claims." Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). The defendants raise several arguments

, Hanson & Molloy, Adam Augustine Caner, Law Office of Adam A. Carter, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil Matthew Corwin, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Appellees. Before: and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, SIIIMnior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. "1 This case was considered on the recor

, 436 U.S. 478, 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2915-16, fi7 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978). Oth- er executive officials are entitled to quali- fied immunity, see, e.g.. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-49, 94 S.Ct. 1688, 1691- 92, 40 LEd.2d 90 (1974) (state executive officials), as are prosecutorial activities that ar