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

d instead shall look to Virgin Islands law to deter- mine 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 plaintiffs' claim

vision pi, the question of whether Cayman or New York law applies is primarily governed by the types of claims that are brought. For example, under New York's "internal affairs" doctrine, claims concerning the relationship between a corporation, its directors, and its shareholders are governed by the subst

neral broad regulatory and remedial powers to prevent securities fraud. There is no private right of action under the Martin Act. Prior to 2011, the Martin Act preempted common law claims in the context of securities fraud to the extent said claims did not require proof of deceitful intent. See e.g., Caste

commodities, and that there is no private right of action. (Defs.' Mem. Of Law in Support of Mot. To Dismiss at 44-46.) The plaintiffs counter that New York's Martin Act does not apply to nor bar their claims. (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss at 48-49.) The plaintiffs correctly assert that N

s, and that there is no private right of action. (Defs.' Mem. Of Law in Support of Mot. To Dismiss at 44-46.) The plaintiffs counter that New York's Martin Act does not apply to nor bar their claims. (Pls.' Mem. Of Law in Opp'n to Mot. To Dismiss at 48-49.) The plaintiffs correctly assert that New York law

. Banque Arabe et Internationale D 'Investissement v. 20 Claimants' breath of fiduciary duty claim also must be dismissed as a matter of law because New York's Martin Act bars Claimants' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 352a -352c (McKinney 2007). The Martin Act entrusts to New

be et Internationale D 'Investissement v. 20 Claimants' breath of fiduciary duty claim also must be dismissed as a matter of law because New York's Martin Act bars Claimants' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. See N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 352a -352c (McKinney 2007). The Martin Act entrusts to New York State'