Epstein Secrets

s exception of FSIA; (7) survivors failed to make prima fade showing necessary to establish person- al jurisdiction over Princes and others under New York's long-arm statute; (8) modified due process standard appro- priate for mass torts would not be applied to question of personal juris- diction; (9)

rocess under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment applies. U.S.CA. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 48. Courts 0 ,12(2.5) Personal jurisdiction under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.CA. Const. Amend. 14; N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 3

Kreindler, Marc 5. Moller, Milton G. Sincoff, Noah H. Kushlefsky, Paul S. Edelman, Robert James Spragg, Steven R. Pounian, Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City, Elliot R. Feldman, J. Scott Tarbutton, John M. Popilock, Sean P. Car- ter, Stephen A. Cozen, Cozen O'Connor (Philadelphia), Philadelphia, PA, for

r purpose, and (d) the resulting damage or injury." Chrysler Capital Corp. 778 F.Supp. at 1267 (quoting Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1055 (2d Cir.1986)). To warrant the inference that a defendant was a member of the conspira- cy, Plaintiffs must show that "(a) the de- fendant had an awareness of th

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

e functional, its features may be copied even if conibsion would result. American Greetings Corp.'. Dan-Dee Onportit Ina, 807 F.2d 1136, 1141 (3d Cir.1986). FT states that its packaging design was chosen because the design was pretty, so- phisticated, and showed off the novelty value of the deodorant

elp conference at a hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. The hotel was near the H d Rock Café in New Orleans. traveled the world) including the USVI, New York, Santa Fe, Palm Beach, France, Africa, Spain and the United Kingdom. Alhambra Castle in Spain. ecalled visiting eventually traveled to the United

cen. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

ursuant CO section 1292(b), we must of course dismiss the appeal if we are without jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1379 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1039, 107 S.D. 1979, 95 L.Erl.2d 819 (1987). Under section 1292(b), a district court may certify for appeal a non-final o

cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil!, Bressler & Schubnan Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986), and privileges, "whatever their origins ... [should] not [be] lightly created or expansively construed." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 710, 94 5.O. at 3109

cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.O. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

ursuant to section 1292(6), we must of course dismiss the appeal if we are without jurisdiction. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1379 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1039, 107 S.Ct. 1979, 95 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987). Under section 1292(6), a district court may certify for appeal a non-final o

York, Pro Se. Jessie Siegel a/k/a Jesse Siegel, Esq., New York, Pro Se. Siegel, Martin & Heilbrun, By Robert Heilbrun, Esq., A Partner of the Firm, New York, Pro Se. Ron Soffer, Esq., New York, Pro Se. Carmen Tausik, Esq., New York, Pro Se. OPINION CHIN, D.J. *1 In this case, the United States (the "

g real property rights are determined under state law, even when the United States is a party." United States v. O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir.1986) (citing Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 378-81, 97 S.Ct. 582, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977)). [FN7] FN7. Indee

ctn. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

rsuant to section 1292(b), we must of course dismiss the appeal if we are without jurisdiction. See Robinson v, Tanner. 798 F.2d 1378, 1379 (11 th Cir.1986), cen. denied. 481 U.S. 1039, 107 S.Q. 1979, 95 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987). Under section 1292(b), a district court may certify for appeal a non-final ord

his room at a hotel in New York, New York; e. On or about January 15, 2008, a prostitute working with the Emperors Club went to a client's hotel in New York, New York; f. On or about January 18, 2008, TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," the d endant, spoke over the telephone If with a new prostit

ely on the defendant's status as a U.S. cit- izen is firmly estallished by our precedent. See, e.g.. United States Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 854 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen who violated a federal statute while in Canada los proper under the nationality principle); McKee!

rman ("Sherman"), Hoffenberg's uncle, vice-president. At DCC, Sherman had blank checks available for Hof- fenberg and put up the money to start Her New York and had made payments on Hoffenberg's apartment and boat mortgage. Stratford started op- erations in late December 1993 by taking on a few collecti

allis, 28 F.3d 1399, 1409 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Fitch, 964 F.2d 571, 574 (6th Cir.1992); United Stales v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352, 354 (8th Cir.1986). F1418. United States v. Tilley, 964 F.2d 66, 70 (Id Cir.1992) FN19. Dallis, 28 F.3d at 1409; Tilley, 964 F.2d at 70; United States v. Crawford,

cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil!, Bressler if Schulman Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986), and privileges. "whatever their origins ... [should] not [be] lightly created or expansively construed." Nixon. 418 U.S. at 710, 94 S.Ct. at 310