most [district attorneys] want an upward departure, never down," Mr. Weber said. Ms. Gaffney had to defend her decision at a January 2011 hearing in New York Supreme Court. "I am a little overwhelmed because I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this," Justice Ruth Pickholz told Ms. Gaffney, accor

most [district attorneys] want an upward departure, never down," Mr. Weber said. Ms. Gaffney had to defend her decision at a January 2011 hearing in New York Supreme Court. "I am a little overwhelmed because I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this," Justice Ruth Pickholz told Ms. Gaffney, accor

YORK DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE One Hogan Place New York, NY Telephone: 5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 6. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR SPECIAL PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) heari

IX 47 The information which follows is in response to item 7(E) of the application and is identified as Appendix 47: - An Action was commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership to recover from a limited partner distributions made to the limited partner on the basis of aud

ci 6.75 1/24/11 Michelle T Denny 2.00 Page 6 Description action. Read S. Musumeci e-mail re next steps. Review and copy official file from New York Supreme Court: draft e-mail update and analysis to legal team: conduct legal research re procedural requirements for filing appeal and motion for a stay: cond

'S OFFICE One Hogan Place New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 335-9000 5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 6. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR SPECIAL PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) heari

e U.S. Virgin Islands. • In 2006, Mr. Epstein settled a Florida Circuit Court case with an artwork consignor. • In 2007, an action commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership against Mr. Epstein as trustee of one of the limited partners was dismissed with prejudice. •

the U.S. Virgin Islands. • In 2006, Mr. Epstein settled a Florida Circuit Court case with an artwork consignor. • In 2007, an action commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership against Mr. Epstein as trustee of one of the limited partners was dismissed with prejudice. •

Dear ADA Gaffney and ADA Egan: As you are aware, we represent Jeffrey E. Epstein, who is scheduled to appear before the Honorable Ruth Pickholz in New York Supreme Court, Part 66, on Tuesday, November 9, 2010 for a hearing pursuant to New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law § 168 et seq.. We

IX 47 The information which follows is in response to item 7(E) of the application and is identified as Appendix 47: - An Action was commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership to recover from a limited partner distributions made to the limited partner on the basis of aud

'S OFFICE One Hogan Place New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 335-9000 5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 6. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR SPECIAL PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) heari

OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION - FIRST DEPARTMENT x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW • YORK, • App. Div. No. 6081 Respondent, • On Appeal from New York Supreme Court, • New York County, Index No. 30129/10 - against - (Pickholz, J.) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. : x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT O

gnor, the dealer and Mr. Epstein over ownership of artwork which Mr. Epstein purchased for good value from the dealer. • An action was commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership to recover distributions made several years earlier to a limited partner on the basis of audite

or, the dealer and Mr. Epstein over ownership of artwork which Mr. Epstein purchased for good value from the dealer. • An action was commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership to recover distributions made several years earlier to a limited partner on the basis of audite

or, the dealer and Mr. Epstein over ownership of artwork which Mr. Epstein purchased for good value from the dealer. • An action was commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership to recover distributions made several years earlier to a limited partner on the basis of audite

Next Current Litigation Status as of 9-14-17: New York (1) Alex Shanklin et al. v. Wilhelmina Models et al., Index No.: 653702/2013, New York Supreme Court (2) Shawn Pressley et al. v. Ford Models et al., Index No.: 653001/2016, New York Supreme Court (Both New York Model Cases) These cases have the s

e U.S. Virgin Islands. • In 2006, Mr. Epstein settled a Florida Circuit Court case with an artwork consignor. • In 2007, an action commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership against Mr. Epstein as trustee of one of the limited partners was dismissed with prejudice. •

the U.S. Virgin Islands. • In 2006, Mr. Epstein settled a Florida Circuit Court case with an artwork consignor. • In 2007, an action commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership against Mr. Epstein as trustee of one of the limited partners was dismissed with prejudice. •

or, the dealer and Mr. Epstein over ownership of artwork which Mr. Epstein purchased for good value from the dealer. • An action was commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership to recover distributions made several years earlier to a limited partner on the basis of audite

or, the dealer and Mr. Epstein over ownership of artwork which Mr. Epstein purchased for good value from the dealer. • An action was commenced in New York Supreme Court by the liquidating trustee of a limited partnership to recover distributions made several years earlier to a limited partner on the basis of audite