Epstein Secrets

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

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' claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count IV) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count l) because, under

ely 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, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 7

ave stated claims cognizable in this jurisdiction. 2. NEW YORK'S MARTIN ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS LAWSUIT The defendants aver that the Marlin Act, New York General Business section 352 et seq., bars the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count IV) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count V) because, under th

ely prevail in a trial on the merits, but whether they should be afforded an opportunity to otter evidence in support of their claims." Id. (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Harlow v. Fitzgerald. 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 7

ave 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' claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count IV) and breach of fiduciary duty (Count V) because, under th