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

isrepresentation. 6. The Rescission and Punitive Dam- ages Counts are not Causes of Ac- tion The defendants contend that this Court should dismiss Counts VI and VII—for rescission of the note and for punitive damages—because each claim seeks specif- ic relief without asserting any claim for relief. (Me

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

as charged only in runts VIII, was found guilty on Counts (con- spiracy involving trips to Nevada) and VII (Nevada trip of Bray) and acquitted on Counts VI and VIII (Nevada trips of Daw- son and Anderson respectively). He re- ceived two concurrent sentences of three years' imprisonment Both defendants

int in August 2004, is this mat- ter within the statute of limitations. At the hearing, Plaintiff suggested that be- cause the videotape was made in New York, Defendant's interstate transporta- tion of the item to =, and continuing EFTA00226278 SMITH I HUSBAND Chen376 F.Supp2d 603 (E-D.Va. 2005) C.1.

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. GONZALES Cue a. 475 F.Supp.24 775 (E.D.N. 2007) Plaintiff claims negligent supervi- sion and retention; (D) DENIED as to Counts VI and VIII of Plaintiffs Complaint; (E) DENIED as to Plaintiffs claim (or punitive damages. (2) Defendant Brother Antonio F. Anto- nucci's Motion f