075

PDF Document Uploaded Feb 2, 2026 by Unknown Updated by admin 1 views 282.01 KB
Folders as described.
DOJ Epstein Release Interview Victim Statements Evidence Maxwell
← Back to Farmer v. Indyke, No. 1;19-cv-10475 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
Extracted Text

UN4 ITED TA4 ES3 DI-3 ST3 RICT CO-4 UR4 SOUT3 HER-2 D4 IST-2 RI-3 CT4 OF NEW YORK AN4 NIE FA-5 RMER Plai-3 nt3 iff DA4 REN5 ND4 YK4 nd RICH4 AR-5 D4 KA4 HN in heir-4 c4 apacities as-2 the exe5 cutor-4 of he ESTA4 TE O4 JEFFREY3 DWA3 RD4 EPS3 TEIN nd GH4 ISLAI-4 NE3 MAXWELL Defendant cv LGS DCF CORR4 CTED MEMORANDU3 OF LAW IN4 SU3 PPORT OF DE4 EN4 DANT3 MOTIO-3 T4 DISMISS OR TO TR4 ANS-4 FER Case Document Filed Page of ii Tab3le of-4 Contents Table-2 of Co5ntent-4s ii Table-2 of Authorities i Int-3roduction Background Argument I The com-2plai5nt f-3iled nea3rly three decades after the4 event-3s a4lleges i-3s ba3rred by the-2 s4tatute of limitation5s A Standa-2rd of-3 5rev-2iew The com-2plai5nt i-3s untim3ely under New Mexico and N3ew Y3or-6k law rev-2iv3ed u4nder-2 New3 York law i ii CP3LR i Plai-3nt3iff has-2 5not pl-3aus3ibly plead e-3qu5itable tol3li-3ng 5or e-2stopp-2e4l II If-3 not dismis5sed t-3he c3ase agai-3ns4t Ms-3 5Maxwell-4 sh4ould be-2 t3ransferred t-3o 5th3e Dist-3rict o3f 3New3 Mexi-3co Conclusi-3on Cert-2ificate o4f Ser-3vice Case Document Filed Page of i Tab3le of-4 Au3thori-3ti Cases Am3 Transi-2t I-3ns Co Sart-2or N.Y Ashcrof-3t 3v Iqbal U.S3 Bell-3 At4l Corp Twom3b-4ly U.S3 Dennis JP5Mor-2gan Chase Co __ Supp 3d __ N4o CV LAK WL S.D.N3.Y Feb Doe Hartford Rom4an Catholi-3c Di4ocese-3 Corp A.3d Conn Ferro Ry 5Express-3 Age5ncy I-3nc F.2d 2d Cir-2 Friedman Connect-3icut5 Gen Life-2 Ins C4o N.Y Gallewski-4 Hentz Co N.Y Geiss-2 W-2e4in3ste-3in Co Holdings-2 LLC Supp 3d S.D.N5.Y Guaranty Trust-4 Co York U.S3 Hopkins Lincol-3n Trus4t 3Co N.E Hym3owitz Eli Li-3lly 3Co N.E.2d In r-2e Londo5n Sil-3ve3r Fixing Ltd Antitrust Litig Supp 3d S.D.N5.Y In r-2e W-2or4ld 3Trade Ctr Lower Manhat-4tan Dis-2as4ter Sit-2e Li3ti-3g Supp 3d S.D.N3.Y In r-2e W-2or4ld 3Trade Ctr Lower Manhat-4tan Dis-2as4ter Sit-2e Li3ti-3g N.Y Jang Hoi Choi Beaut-3r4i 3Realt-3y Corp5 N.Y A4pp Dept Knicker-3bock3er I-3ce Co Stewart U.S N.Y Maj-3ewsk4i B3roadal-2bin Perth Cent-3 5Sch Dist-3 N.Y Case Document Filed Page of iv Mat-3ter of 4M3cCann Wal-3sh Constr-2.5 Co N.Y.S.2d N.Y A4pp Dept-2 Ochre LLC Rock well A3rchi-3tecture Planning D4esi-3gn P.C3 No C4IV KBF WL S.D.N3.Y 2Dec People M3cLaughli-3n N.Y Robinson R3obins-2 Dry Dock Rep3air Co N.E3 Simmons Abruzzo F.3d 2d Cir-3 Sluss-3er V3antage-2 Builders Inc-3 P.3d N.M App Staf-3ford I4nter-3nat3ional Harvest-2er 3Co 2d Cir-3 Stuar-2t Am5 Cyanam3id Co 2d Cir-3 Sweener S5aint Gobain5 Perf ormanc5e Plastic-2s C6orp No CV WL N.D.N4.Y 2F-3eb Touche Ross Co Redingt-2on U.S Zumpano Q4uinn N.Y Stat-2utes U.S3.C U.S3.C U.S3.C CP3LR pass-2im CV4A N.M Stat N.Y4 ONST art-4 5I N.Y4 Educ 4Law a N.Y4 Educ 4Law 3a N.Y4 Exec 5Law a Case Document Filed Page of N.Y4 Penal Law N.Y4 Pub He-2alt-4h Law N.Y4 Pub He-2alt-4h Law New3 York P-3enal-3 Law Ru3les Fed C4iv Case Document Filed Page of Defendant-4 5Ghisl-2aine M5axwell v5es t-3his Cour5t 3for-3 an or-2d5er dismissi-3ng 5th3is c-3ase o5r tr-3ans3ferri-3ng 5the c-3as3e against-2 her to t-3h5e Dist-3rict o3f 3New3 Mexi-3co INT3RODUCT3ION wrong court-4.5 It describ3es event-3s that-4 a4ll-3eged3ly occurr ed ne4arl-4y 5thr-3ee d3ecades ago and it deta-3ils all-4eg4ed cond3uct by M-3r E4pste-3in while 5ref-4e4rring t-2o 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l as-3 an a3ft-3e4rthought h5en it doe4s all-4eg4e ondu5ct by M-3s M3axwell-3 i3t all5eges conduc3t t-3ha4t occurr4ed in New Mexi-3co no5t 3New3 York This Court s4hould di-3s4miss or-2 t3ran-2sfe6r t-3he c3ase a-3g5ains-3t Ms M5axwell-3 to Ne4w Mexico BA4CKGR-4OUND Plai-3nt3iff cl-3a4ims that whe6n she was e-2ithe fifteen 3or s-2ixteen ye3ars-3 old 3in or Mr-4 Epstei-4n 5lur-3e4d her-2 to Ne4w Y4ork ba-2sed on promi4se of-3 helpin5g her-2 get into colle-2g5e Compl-2 Wi-2th no all-4eg4ed invo3lvem-4en4t of-3 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l Mr-4 Epstei5n bought Pla3int-3iff a p3lane tic-3ke4t fr-3om Ar3izona to New3 York Id purpor-3tedly working f-3or Mr Epstein as a purc-2h5as3er 2of art Id Plai-3nt3iff cl-3a4ims that in N5ew Y3ork M-2r Epst-3e4in t-3o5ok her-2 and h4er 2sister-3 5to a movie Id it-3h no invo3lv3eme-3nt o5r pa-2rtic3ipation of-3 Ms Ma-3xwel4l Mr-4 Epstei5n all-4eg4edly groped Plai-3nt3iff during the-2 5movie Id P6lai-4n5ti-3ff re3turned to Arizona shor-2tly af3ter-4 Id Somet-3ime l3a4ter-4 in t-3he sp3ri-3ng of Mr Eps-2tei5n and pr-2opose3d to s-2ponsor a trip for-3 P6laint3if-3f 3to hi-3s4 ra-2nch in Ne3w Mexico Id Mr-2 5Epstei-4n 5tol-3d h5is ranch was 3the s-3ite of 3a4n educational progr-3a4m f-3o5r hi-3gh schoo3l st-4uden4ts Id Accord ing 3to t-3he co3mplaint-3 M4r Ep4ste-3in 3rep-2rese5nted t-4ha4t Ms Maxwell-3 w7ould be-2 c4haper-3one Id Mr E3pste-3in 3agai-3n bought a plane ti-2ck4et f-4o5r 3Plai-3nt3iff maili-4ng it to her-2 mo3ther-4 5in3 Ariz-2ona Id The com-2plaint does not allege that Ms M4axwell-3 co n5tacted Plai-3nt3iff or-2 h5er 2mo3ther-4 o5r arra-2ng5ed for S5ee Case Document Filed Page of When Pla-3in3tiff-2 a4rrived at5 the r-4an4ch s3he claims-3 sh4e was the only st-2uden4t t-3h5ere-3 The compl-4a4int-3 a4lleges 3that-4 a4t 3the r-4an4ch M3s Maxwel-3l 3pre-2ssured Pl4aintif-3f 3to gi-3v5e Mr-3 Epste in3 foot-3 mas-3sages Id It-3 a4lso all-2eg4es t-3ha4t Mr-4 Epstei5n and Ms-2 M4axwell-3 took 3her-2 to see a 4movi-3e duri-3ng whic4h Mr-2 Epstei5n touche-3d he4r body a-2gainst her-3 wi5ll-3 Id The com-2plai5nt doe-2s not-2 all-4eg4e that 4Ms Ma-3xwel4l t-3ouched P4laint3if-3f or pon re-2tur-3n5ing t-3o th3e r-2a4nch Pla-2in3ti-3ff claims that Ms Maxwe4ll-3 pe4rs-2uaded her-2 to remov3e all-4 he4r c-2lo3th3es s-2o Ms Maxw3ell-4 cou4ld3 give Pl-3a4intiff-4 a 4mas-3s4ag4e Id P6lai-4n5ti-3ff al3leges that Ms Maxwell-4 5massaged Pl agai-3ns4t her-4 5will-3 for the s7exual-3 benef-3it of Maxw4ell-4 and 4Epstei-4n Id physi-2ca3ll-3y 5res-3train3ed h4er 2with his a4rm-3s an p5roceeded to pr5ess hi-4s body4 i-3nc4ludi-3ng h5is ge-3ni3tals agai-3ns Id Th6e com-3pl3aint-4 5does not-3 a4ll-3e4ge tha-3t 3Ms 3Maxwell-4 wa6s invo-2lved or par-2ticipate in t-3his inc4id3ent or knew of i-3t S5ee i-3d Plai-3nt3iff t-2he4n re-2tur-3n5ed to A4ri-3zona Id mpl-3a4int-3 ne4xt devotes s4ever-3a4l par-4ag4rap-2hs t-2o de4s4cri-4b5ing t-3he a3ll-3eged sexual assa-3ul3t of her si-2s4ter-4 M4aria Farmer at4 an Epste-3in 3prope-2rt-3y 5in 3Ohio Id Accordi-3ng to t-3h5e compl-4a4int-3 a4ft-3er the a3ssault Ms Max6well th3rea-3te7ned Mar-4ia F3arm-4e4r on behalf of-4 5Mr E3pste-3in telli-3ng Id This alle-2ga4ti-3on 5i demons-3trabl3y fa-2lse-3 Speaking f-4o5r her-2se3lf-3 5in Mar-3ia F3arm-4er appa3ren-2tly tol-3d p5oli-3ce 3that-4 5M4r Epst-3e4in and st-3a4ted he w3as goi-3ng 5to bur-3n her painting an5d send he-2r poloroi-2ds s-2ic7 the burn5t S5ee Ex A ug Poli-2ce Repo4rt-3 by Ma3ri-3a 4Farm-3er In any event t6he com-3pl3aint is-2 devo4id o3f a-2ny allega3tion that Ms Maxwell-4 ev4er 2threatene5d Plai-3nt3iff Case Document Filed Page of The com-2plai5nt alle-2ges 3th3at Maria Fa3rmer repor3ted the Ohio incident to b3oth t-3he NY3PD Sixt-2h Precin5ct and to th e4 FB3I ne-2it-3he4r of w3hich t-4o5ok any actio3n Id At tha-2t po3int Mar-2ia Farm-3er spok6e with Pl-3a4intiff-4 who al4legedly t-2o5ld 3Mar-3ia of th3e4 event-3s 4in New Y3ork a-2nd New3 Mexi-3co Id T6he si-3sters cla4im-3 th3ey took their s-2to3ry to V3anit-4y Fair Magazine 4which lai-4nt3iff say3s declined publi-3sh a st5ory onl-3y afte4r Mr-4 Epst3ein but-3 not Ms Maxwell thr-3e4ate-3ned 4and intim-3id3a4ted t-4he 4magazine 2and Va5nit-3y Fair ben5t t-3o those th4reats Id Plai-3nt3iff never claims sh4e had cont-3a4c4t wit-3h e4it-3he4r 3Mr Eps-2tein 5or M-2s Maxw4ell-4 after ret-4urning to 3Arizona fro6m New Mexi-3co and she-2 5does not-3 a4ll-3e4ge tha-3t 3Mr E3pste-3in o3r 3Ms Ma-3xwel4l ever-3 th3reate3ned her-3 or c7oer-2ced her n5ot t-3o report 3her-2 allega3ti-3o5ns Yet Plaintiff o3f wealt-3h and 4connections that-2 5they had displ-3ay4ed to her s-2he4 did not-3 t3ell-4 5a4nyone ot-3he4r than her sis-3ter abou4t 3Epstei-4n and4 Maxwell-4 5to3uching he-3r 3a4gains-3t h3er 2will-3 Id for near-3ly 3thirt-2y5 year-3s to il6e thi-3s the f-4a4ct that state an4d fe-2deral authorit-3ies 6as well-4 as 3th3e me-3di3a were not-4 5taki-4ng5 act-3ion 3agai-3n5st Eps-2tein Id Plai-3nt3iff f-2in3a4ll-3y filed 3thi-3s 4la wsuit on N7ovembe-3r Doc It-3 a4ll-3ege3s 4batt-4e4ry f-3a4lse im-3prisonm3e4nt and i-4n5tentional infli-2c4tion of emotional di-2s4tr-3e4ss3 AR4GUME-3NT I THE C4OMPLAINT F-3ILE3D NEARLY4 4THR-2EE4 DECADES3 AFTE-2R T4HE EVENT5S I-4T A4L-2LE4GE-4S IS B3ARR-3ED4 B-2Y T4H-6E S3TATUT-4E OF LIMITA3TI-3ONS Plai-3nt3iff he complaint limits it5s alleg ations4 of tortio-2us conduct-3 by 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l t-3o conduc3t 3all-4eg4edly occurr-3ing 3in New Mexi-2co 4near-3ly 3thr-3e4e 4decade-3s ago M-3s Maxw4ell-4 allege3dly commi-3tt6ed bat-3tery a4gains-3t Plain4tiff-2 5in New Mexi-2co 4in t-3h5e spr-3ing of Six4th recinc3t r-3epo4rt make-2s no 4m3enti-4on o5f a-2n5y all-4eg4ed assault-3s by Mr Epstein 5or M-2s Maxw4ell-4 Ex Case Document Filed Page of by touchi-4ng her-2 5intimate parts agains-2t h3er 2will-3 du5ri-3ng a 4ma Ms Ma-3xwel4l f-3a4lse-3ly 3im-3p5ri-3soned Plai4nti-3ff at 3the N4ew Mexic-3o ra-2nch and6 toget-4he4r t-3h5is conduct inf-3lict3ed emoti-2ona4l distr3ess The com-2plai5nt doe-2s not-2 5a4ll-3ege 3that-4 5M4s Maxwel-3l 3was invol-3ve4d or pa-2rtic3ip3ate-3d in 3Mr of Pl-2ainti3ff-3 a4t a New York movi-3e 4theater-3 Nor do5es t-3he co3mplaint-3 a4ll-3eg4e that Ms-2 Max3well e-3ve4r thr-3ea3tene-3d o5r c-2oerced Pl4aintif-3f 3int-3o n5ot f-3iling a co4mpl-3a4int In f6act-3 Pla3intiff does ot all3ege that Ms Ma-3xwel4l eve-3r 3conta-3c4ted he-3r 3in t-3h5e nearly t-2hre7e deca-3des 3since she was 3in New Mexi-2co A Standard of re-2view In a-2ssessing 3a motion t-3o 5dism-4iss th4is C4ourt-3 need 3only a-2ssume5 the trut-3h of the wel-3l In re London Silv-2e4r 4Fixi-3ng Ltd.,4 Antit-4rus3t Lit-2ig F6 Supp 3d S.D.N4.Y di-3smiss3ing 3conspi-3racy a5nd antitr-3us4t 3cla-3ims as im-3pl3ausi-3b5le It-3 shoul-2d d5is reg-2ard-2 Pl allega3ti-3ons as-2 we6ll as t-2hose 3that im-3properly 3lu3mp t-3oge4ther Ms Ma-3xw7ell-4 wi5th Mr-4 5Epstei-4n Se4e4 Ashcrof-3t 3v 4Iqbal U.S3 Bell-3 At4l Corp Twom3b-4ly U.S3 Dism-2iss6al i-4s 4appr-2opriate when as here the c-3o5mplaint-3 5fails t-4o 5all-4eg4e timel5y cla-3ims for 6relief-4 5that-4 a4re plausibl-2e o5n their fac-3e Se4e Dennis JPM3organ Chase Co __ Supp 3d __ N4o CV LAK WL at-2 S.D.N3.Y Feb complaint m-3u5s4t pl-3aus3ibl-3y a4ll-3ege 3that-4 5is timely 3to sur-2vive 5m3oti-3on to dis5mi-3ss3 Th3e com-3plai-2nt i-2s unt4imely under New Mexico and N4ew York law The com-2plai5nt alle-2ges 3th3at M-3s Maxw4ell-4 om3mit4ted t-4h5ree-3 to3rts agai-3ns4t Pl-2a4int-3iff 4in New Mexi-3co re7side-3nts lik3e 4Plai-3nt3iff t-2o s4ue in New York court-4s 4for-3 to3rt-3s oc3c4urr-3ing ou5tside New Y4ork the c-3laim3s4 must-4 be 4tim4ely unde-3r both N3ew Case Document Filed Page of York law t-2h5e la-3w in the sta-3te w4her-2e the tort alleg4edly oc-3cu4rr-3e4d Because-2 a ll-3 th3ree-3 c4aus3es of-3 ac3ti-3on are-3 unt3im-3e4ly3 under-2 New3 Mexi-3co and 4New3 York law the c-3om3plai-4n5t m-3us4t 3be dis-3m3iss-3e4d New3 Yo rk 6must-4 app4ly the New3 York choi-2ce of Stuar-2t Am3 Cyana-3mid Co F.3d 2d Cir-2 citi-3n5g Guaranty Trust-4 Co York U.S3 Id cit3ing3 Staf-3ford Int-3erna3ti-3ona5l Ha rves-3ter 6Co 2d Cir-3 This gener4al r-4u5le however-4 is subj4ect to 3a traditional st-2a4tutory exce-3p5ti-3o5n New3 Yor-4k borr-3owing sta-3tu3te C.P.L.R3 Id New3 Yor-4k borrowi5ng st-2atute pe4rm-3its a 4res-3id3ent of-4 anothe-3r sta4te her-2e Tex4a4s to sue-3 in 3New3 York for-3 tort occu3rr-3ing outside7 New3 York New3 Mexi-3co 5th3e omplaint is timely u4nder-2 the law6s of-2 New3 York and the s-3tate in which6 the occur-3red ag4ain New Mexi-3co CP3L6R Th-3e pur-2pose of C3PLR4 Stuar-2t F.3d at New Mexi-3co has three year-3 s4tatute of limitatio5ns f-2or perso4nal i-4n5jur-3y ac3ti-3ons N.M 5Stat-3 an4d mi-3nors-2 h5a4ve one yea-3r 3fr-3om 3rea-3ch4in3g the a-3ge o4f m-3a4jor-3ity to4 begin such 3an action N.M Stat A 3the l-4a4test lai-4n5ti-3ff 4claims-3 exp4ir-3ed 4some-3time 3in3 Plai-3nt3if-3f cla-3ims a4re u5nti-3m3ely und5er 2New3 Mexi-3co la-3w and 5thus they are time ba4rr-3e4d under-2 CP3LR Sim-2ilarly nder-2 New3 York law a plaintiff-3 5alleging batt-2e4ry fals-2e 4im-3priso5nment-4 and int-3en4ti-3ona4l infl-2iction of 6emotiona-2l d3istress must c4omm-3enc3e he3r a-2ction within one yea3r 3of t-3he cla-3im 4accrual CP3LR Gei4ss W-4e4instein Co Holdi-2ngs LLC Supp 3d S.D.N3.Y The co4mpl-3a4int-3 he4re w4as Plai-3nt3iff sa-2y5s she i-4s a 3resident-3 o5f Tex3as Compl-3 Case Document Filed Page of li-3m3it-3a4ti-3ons 4dism-4issal 3is required und3er New-3 York law Plai-3nt3iff i-2n 5her-2 pre mo3tion res-3ponse did not-3 den4y that-4 he4r c-2laims-2 5are-3 un5time3ly unde-2r New3 Mexi-3co Law at I-4ns4tea-3d Plaint4iff cont-3ends 3th3at CPLR3 does not apply provi-3d5es f-3or 5revi5val window of c-2iv3il-3 c4laims-2 notwi4th3sta-3nding 3an4y provi-3sion of la-2w w4hich impose-3s 4a 4per-2iod of-3 5limi-2tation 3to the c-3ont3rar-4y Id po5ints to CPLR4 a As explai-4ne4d below i c4ompl-3a4int-3 poi3nts t-4o CP3LR a which in some cases all4ows a plai-4n5tiff-2 to pur-3sue o3th3erwis-3e unti5mel-4y c4laims-2 she 3files-2 t3hem wit-4h5in 3one year-4 o5f the termi-3na4tion of a crimi-3na4l action against th3e def-3endan3t if-3 th3e criminal a-3c4ti-3on co4ncer-3n ed occu C7ompl-3 But that-4 p5rovi-3s4io3n does not-3 a4pply her-2e becaus-3e Ms.3 Maxwell w7as ne-2ver-2 5indicte-2d only 3M4r Epst-3e4in was a-2nd because the-2 Eps5tein indi-3c4tm-3en4t d3id not-3 conc3e4rn t-3he th3is civil3 compl-4a4int-3 a4ri-3se ii CP3LR4 does not3 and cannot re-2vive la3in4ti-3ff c3laims The CV4A C-5PLR4 purpor-3ts t5o re-2vive oth5erwis-3e tim3e bar-2red-2 5claims for i-4n5juries suf-2fered as-2 5a r-2esult of-2 5c4onduct which w3ould c-2onst-2it-3u5te ffense3 under-2 New3 York penal law Pla-2in3ti-3ff invokes-2 C7PLR4 to sa-3ve c3laims-2 th3at e-3xp5ir-3ed ne4arl-4y 5th3ir-3ty y5ear-3s 4a4g The att-4e4mpt-3 5fails because CP3LR does not apply t-3o 5the claims a-2ga4in3st M-3s Maxw4el Plai-3nt3iff has not cl-2a4im-3ed4 that-4 New3 M4exic-3o has 3a revival-3 5statute The indi-3c4tment c-2ha4rge-2d 5conduct-3 by 5M Epst-3e4in 3between and in N4ew Y3ork-6 and occur-3ring in in N3ew Mexic-3o Compl Case Document Filed Page of CP3LR under-2 which Plai-3nt3iff m-2u5st pr-4ove he3r 3cla-3ims a4re 2ti6mel-4y unde4r 3New3 Mexi-3co la-3w whic4h concede-3dl3y they are not 3and even CP3L6R does a-2pply 3its appl-2icat4ion3 to Ma-3xwel4l 3is unc-3onstitu3ti-3ona4l a CP3LR4 does not3 apply to Ms Maxwell CP3LR by it-3s 4ter5ms does not-3 5apply to Maxwell-4 be4cause th3e co4nduct a-3llege4d sexua-2l offense under Ne4w Y4ork Pena-2l Law CP3LR says-2 Notwiths-2tanding 114any 115provision 114which 115imposes li-3m3it-3a4ti-3on 94the 97contra4ry ever-3y5 94civil 96claim 87or 96cause-3 91act-3ion brought-3 84aga3in3st 87any 85part5y as 85res-3ult-3 86con4duct 87which const-3itute3 64sexua-2l 66offen5se 69define4d 64article 65one 70hundre-2d5 69thirt-2y5 of 16the 17p5enal-3 9law N.Y 12Penal 17Law commi3tt-3ed 15ag4ainst 15chil-4d5 les-3s 115than 117eighteen 121y5ears 116age is 119revived 115and 115act-3ion3 ther-4eon 79be 80comm-4en4ced 81not arli3er 82than 82six 77mont-3hs 80after 77and not 18lat-4e4r 18than 22one 19year-3 20and 19six 17months 20aft-4e4r 18the 17e4ff-3ec3ti-3ve 19da4te 22of section Maj-3ewsk4i 3v Broadalb in Perth Cen3t Sch Dis-3t N.Y indicator of l-3eg4islative intent-2 5is the statut-3o5ry text 3the s-3ta7rt-3ing point in any c-3as3e 4of i-3nt3erp-2reta4ti-3on must a4lw5ays be-2 the language-2 5it-3s4elf-4 g5ivi-3ng e4ff-3ec3t t-3o 5the plain Id Am3 Transi-2t I-3n5s 4Co Sartor N.Y The plai-4n an4d unambi-4gu5ous l-2anguag3e of-2 PLR4 shows it-3 does no3t 3apply t-4o it to appl-4y condu4ct which would cons-2titu4te a sexua3l offens-2e as def4in3ed in N.Y4 Penal Law however constit-2ut3e a3 sexua-2l offe3nse a-2s defin4ed in N.Y4 Penal Law only i-3f were committ-2ed in New3 York See People 5McL3aughli-3n N.Y 5has power-2 to3 enact-4 and 4e4nfor-3ce Case Document Filed Page of crimi-3na4l l-3aw6s withi-4n i3ts t5err-4itor4ial-4 bo5rders t-2he4re 2c4an be no c-2ri6mi-3na4l of-3fens6e unle-3ss h5as Because t-4he4 compl-4a4int-3 c4oncer-3ns con3duct alleged3ly committed3 in New purpor-3ted co4n woul5d not cons3titute a sexual off-3en4se as-3 5def-2ined in N.Y4 Penal Law Had the New3 York Stat-3e Assem-3bly 3int-3ended o3th3erwis-3e th3at is had t-3h5e 4Stat-3e Asse3m3bly int-3ended 3to revive claims for conduct 5occur-3ring ou6tsi-4de ew Y3ork ha4t if-3 5c4omm-3itted within t-2h5is sta-3te w4ould 3have cons-3tit4uted as defin3ed in pe-3na4l law N.Y4 Pen-4al La-2w it-3 knew 6how to do so In f-3ac3t the Stat-3e Ass4embl-4y cou4ld3 have done-2 what it rout-3in3ely do es i n5clude-3 l3angua3ge maki-4ng cle-3a4r an inte4nt for the sta3tut-3e to appl-4y to conduct-3 5occur-3ring ou6tsi-4de New Y4ork Take New3 Yor-4k law defi4ning pr-3ofess5ional-4 5mi-3sco3nduct by physicians It p5rovi-3des 3that-4 is prof-3essional mis-2condu4ct to be convic-3ted o7f 3co4mm-3itt4i ng 5an 4act-3 5cons3ti-3tu3ting 6a 4crime-2 10under-2 New Y)3ork state law o5r i-3i fed)3eral law3 or i-3ii 55the 57law 55of 61another 55ju3ri-3sdict4ion 61a4nd 59which if6 59comm3it-3ted 57withi-3n thi-3s 39state 39would 40have 38const-3it-3u5ted 40cri-3me 41under 38New3 40York 39st-7ate law E3duc 5Law a emph5asi-3s adde-2d5 This l-3angua3ge ma-3kes 3clear t-3h5at c-3on5duct occur-3ring ou6tsi-4de New Y4ork c-2an constit-3u5te pr-4o5fessional-4 5mi-3s4co4nduct wit-4h5in3 New3 York The exam-3pl3es abound E.g N.Y4 E-3duc Law a3 de-2fining 4a4s pr-2ofe-2s4sional Stat-3e 4law i-3i Feder)3al law or 3The law of another-3 5jur-3isd7iction a-2nd which if comm4it-3ted withi-3n th3is st4ate woul-2d h5ave cons-3titu4ted a crime u4nder New York State la3w empha-3s4is added N.Y4 Pub He-2alt-4h Law hen a licensee has pl5eaded or-4 be4e4n found gui-3lty or convic-3ted of5 commit-3ting 6an act-4 con4stitut-3ing 3a f-2e4lo3ny under-2 New3 York st-2ate law or f-3ed4eral l-2aw or Case Document Filed Page of the l-4aw of 4a4nother-4 5jur-3isd7iction whic-2h5 if-3 comm3itte3d with in t-3h5is stat-2e would4 have cons-3tit4uted a fel-4ony und4er3 New3 York st-3ate l-4aw em-4phas3is added Pub Healt-2h5 Law au-2thoriz3ing3 suspe-2nsion-2 5of l3ice-3ns 4if the 3li-3cen3se3e is c-3onv5icted of c-2e4rt-3a4in3 cr-2imes and 3the convic-3tion i6s under-2 3New3 York st-2ate-3 l3aw 2(ii 4fed-2eral law3 3or t)-3he 4law4 of a-2nother jur-3isdic4ti-3on 5which if-3 co4mm4it-3ted wi-2th3in t-3his sta4te w4ould hav-2e4 const-3ituted 3prof-2essional misconduc-2t 3u nder New York stat-4e 4la3w em-4phas3is added c4hoice not 3to 3use t-3he cond3it-3ion3al perfect t-3en4se 0C is dispo-2sitive of it-3s 4intent 3As th abov4e exam-3p5les-3 s4how w4hen the-3 Stat-3e Ass4embl-4y 5int-3en4ds a l-3aw to apply t-4o con4duct oc-3cu4rr-3in3g out of-3 sta6te which if commit-2ted 7withi-3n th3is s4tat-4e would 5have const-3ituted a4 cr-2ime under N4ew Y3ork s-2tat-4e 4law See T6ouche Ross Co Redingt-3on U.S3 pri-3va4te da-3m3age r-3e4medy it knew ho4w to do so an s4ee e.g N.Y4 Educ Law a N.Y P3ub 4Healt-3h Law N.Y P3ub 4Healt-3h Law m6 And the Stat-3e Asse3m3bly easily could have done so in CPLR5 by sayi-3ng that the sta3tut-3e4 re-2vived other-4wise 3time conduct which would cons-2titut-2e 4a sexua-3l o3ff-3e4nse as def-2ined in article one hu3ndre-2d th3ir-3ty 3of t-3he pen3al law or i-3f 3co4mm-3itted wit6hin t-3his sta3te would have cons-3tit4uted a sexua6l of-3fense as 3def-2ined in article one hu3ndre-2d th3ir-3ty 3of t-3he pen3al law See CP3LR The legis4lat-4u5re in3tenti3onall-4y de4cided not t-2o 5include this l-2an4guage If-3 CP3LR had b5een written in3 the pr-4es3ent tense-2 5the State-2 Assembl5y li-3kewis3e c3ould ha-2ve shown an intent f-3or it 4to 3apply t-4o con4duct oc-3cu4rr-3in3g outs-2ide N4ew Y3ork I 3has done-2 so countl-4e4ss other-4 5ti-3m3es E.g N.Y4 E-3xec Law a shal-3l apply a-3s he3reinafter pro5vided t-4o an 4act-3 co4mm-3itt4ed outs-3id3e this st-3a4te a-3g5ainst a r-3e4side-3n5t of-3 th3is s-3tat5e or a-2gainst a 3cor-2poration organized u6nder-2 the law6s of-2 this st-2a4te or aut-2ho5ri-3z4ed to do us4ines-3s in thi3s sta-3te if-3 5such3 act woul-2d c4onst-2it-3u5te an unlawful dis5cri-3minatory 6pract-3ice i4f com4mitt-3ed wi4thi-3n th3is stat-4e em-4ph5asi-3s adde-2d5 Case Document Filed Page of Unlike these5 exam-3pl3es 3CP3LR which would cons-2titu4te a sexua-2l offense as define3d in N.Y4 Penal Law It-3 does 3not sp-2eak 3to 3conduct-3 whi5c if-3 commit-3ted 7withi-3n New3 York would have cons-3tit4uted sexu3a4l of-3fense as 3def-2ined in article N.Y Penal Law And absent-2 th3at s-3p5eci-3fic l3angu4age rea-3d5ily available-3 5to3 the St-3a4te A4ssem-4bl and r-2out3inely used would not under-2 New3 York Penal-2 5Law becaus-3e occ3urr-3ed outsid4e New Y4ork and in New Mexi-2co Int-3erpre4ti-3ng 5CP3LR to t-3he s3tat-4u5te w4hich t-4his C4ourt-3 canno3t do See Am3 Transi-2t The C7VA4 thus-2 does n3ot appl-4y 5to barred clai3ms CP3LR4 st-2atut-2e CP7LR4 mo3ti-3on l3etter-2 to3 thi-3s Cour4t 3Plai-3nt3iff ar-3g5ued tha-3t CP6LR becaus-3e 4th3e f-2ormer st5atut-4e 4says-2 i3t n6otwit-3hstandi4ng any pr-2ovi3sion o-2f law w4hich i-4mpo3ses period 5of l-3imi4tation to the C7PLR4 Doc at his ar4gument-4 5is mispl-4a4ced CP3LR and CPL3R can be r-4ead 3together-2 5to gi-3ve 4eff-4e4ct t-4o bo5th3 See Friedm4an Connecti-4c4ut Gen Lif-3e 4Ins-2 Co N.Y h5ere-3 po5ssi-3ble cour-2ts shou4ld3 har-2mon3ize all-4 pa4rt-3s o4f 3a st-3a4tut-3e wi4th3 each ot-4he4r and give effect a-3nd 5mea-3ning to t-3he en3tire 3sta-3tu3te a-3nd e4ver-2y part an4d word ther-4e4of lea-3ne4d up Reca4ll-3 th3at when the New York choi-2c4e of law r-2ul3es and stat-3u5tes-3 o5f l-3imi4tations In no c-2ase c6an CPL3R im-3pri under-2 Ne6w Y4ork Pena-2l Law Case Document Filed Page of sta-3tu3te CP3LR Stuar-2t F.3d at CP3LR req-2uir-3es a 4complaint to be-2 time3ly under both th3e la-3ws of N6ew Y3ork and the s-3tate 4in3 which the-3 t3ort-3 occu3rr-3ed her-2e New3 5Mexi-3co When CPLR4 would const-3it-3u5te 5sex3ual off-3ense as d5efi-4ned 4in notwit-2hstandi4ng any pr-2ovi3sion o-2f law w4hich is r-4e ferri-3n5g any pr-2o5visi-4on of New3 York law tha-3t impo4ses period 5of l-3imi4tation to the c-2on5trary CP3LR is N7ew York sta-3tu3te ena3cted by the Ne6w Y3ork legi-4s4lat-4u5re whic4h appli-4e4s to and r-2eviv es cla-3ims bas3e4d on conduct-3 th3at w4ould vi olate New3 York penal-3 l3aw th3at would ot3her-2wise be u5nti-3m3ely und5er New3 York sta-3tu3tes of limitatio4ns Here a descri-2bed 4abov4e CP3LR req-2u5ired Plai-3n5ti-3ff t4o comm-4en4ce3 her-2 battery fal-4se 3im-3p5ri-3s4onment-4 and4 int-3en4ti-3ona4l infl-2iction of 6emotiona-2l d3istress claims6 withi-3n one 4year-3 of the ir accrual CP3LR Gei4ss Supp 3d at As best he 4eff-4e4ct of-4 CP8LR in t-3his case 5then is to ex4cus Plaintif4f f-3rom complying with C7PLR4 It-3 5rev-2iv3es3 on5ly in3sof-2ar a4s CPLR bar-2red-2 5them By contr-2as3t,3 he effect o5f CPLR4 is n5ot to revive c4laims-2 insofar as New Mexi-2co la-3w ba6rs them But C7PLR4 to be time3ly under-2 both 3New3 York aw and New Me-3xico law Thus a best CPL3R solve-3s4 half-4 of Plai-3nt3iff it m3ight-3 render h4er 2claims timel-2y unde4r 3New3 York aw when they would other-4wise b3e4 unti-3m3ely under CPL3R But 5CP3LR cannot-3 so4lve t-4he o4ther half-4 of Plai-3nt3iff p5roblem it-3 c4annot r-4end4er her claims t3im-3e4ly unde-2r 3New3 Mexi-3co la-3w Plai-3nt3iff CP3LR tr-3u5mp CP3LR would le-2ad to forum-3 shoppi-2ng which is the a4bsur-2d re-2su4lt-3 CP3LR seeks-3 to av4oid See Stu3art F.3d at s4ee3 also Lubont4y U.S Bank Nat Ass N.Y Case Document Filed Page of sta-3tu3te so 4as t-3o avo4id an unreasonable or-3 absu3rd applicati-2o5n of t-3he 4law I P4lai-4n5tiff-2 is right cour-2ts in New Y5ork c-2an expec-3t 3to see a fl-4ood o5f la wsuits-3 con4cer-3ning con4duct oc-3cu4rr-3in3g in ot-3he4r sta-3te havi-3n5g li-3ttle or no6 connection 3to New Y3ork Plai-3nt3iffs w5il-3l know that even if t-2h5ey coul-3d not bri-3ng a 4lawsui-3t i-3n 5the sta3te i-4n which 4th3e conduct-4 o5ccur-3red the4y can f-3ile su4it-3 in New Y3ork s-2o long as t-3here is p5ers-3onal jur3isdiction over-2 5the de-3fenda6nt the New3 York Stat-3e 4Assembl-4y in3tende-3d to overri-3d5e the-3 d5e4cis-3ions of other st-2a4te legislat-3u5res-3 5that-4 5have opted not t-3o revive4 expir-4e clai4ms ba-3sed on3 conduct-3 occ3urr-3ing withi4n their ow borde-2rs-2 Accordi-3ngly3 when read toget-2he4r CPLR4 and CPL3R sti-4ll r4eq4uir-3e Pl4aintiff to show that-3 he4r c-2laims-2 5are-3 5ti-3m3ely under4 New3 Mexi-3co la-3w since they are bas3ed on conduct occur-3ring in 4New3 Mexi-3co Plai-3nt3iff h4as not-3 disput5ed tha-3t h3er 2c4laims-2 are un5ti-3mely und5er N4ew Mexi-3co 4law Doc at-2 and as result-2 5they must-2 be d4ismiss-3ed Ap3plyi ng CPLR3 to M-2s Ma3xwell would vi-2olat-3e due process Disr-2egar-3d5in3g CP3LR and applying proc-2ess The New3 Yor-4k Constitu5ti-3on gua4ran-2tees due pr-2o5c4ess of-4 l3aw N.Y4 ONST art-4 5I This 0F Hopkins Lincoln T4rust-3 Co N.E3 N.Y4 Car-2d5ozo In N5ew Y3ork 6due pr-2ocess-3 5req-2uires a i-3ng 6of int-3e4res-3ts in t3he availab-2ili4ty of-3 a s3tat-4u5te of l3im-3itat3io3ns def-3ense w4it-3h the nee5d to cor-4rect 4an In re Worl-3d 5Trade Ctr N.Y4 The New3 Yor-4k rev-2ival st-2a4tut-3e wi4ll sat-3isfy the D4ue Proc-2ess C4laus-3e of-2 5th Stat-4e Cons5ti-3tu3ti-3on i3t 3was enact-4ed 4as a r-4e4asonable res-3ponse 3in 3orde-2r Id at he injust-2ice subject t-2o 5thi-3s ex3traordi-3n5ary-2 Case Document Filed Page of Doe artf-4ord 4Rom3an Cath-4oli-3c Dioc3ese C4orp A.3d Conn d5isc-3uss3ing New3 York law see als4o Hym3owitz Eli Lill-2y Co N.Y4 Gallewski Hentz 5Co N.Y4 Rob6in son Rob4ins Dry Dock-2 Repai-3r 4Co N.E3 N.Y Mat-3ter of 4M3cCann Wal-3sh Constr-2.5 Co N.Y.S.2d N.Y A4pp 3rd Dept-2 N.Y4 I Robinson 3v Robins Dry Dock R6epair-3 Co th3e New3 York Court of-3 Appeals affirmed the c-3ons4ti-3tu3tionality of-2 5a 4sta-3tu3te t-4h5at revi-2ved the w3rongf-3ul deat4h act-3ion3s of-2 5spouse-2s of-2 d5ecea-3sed worker-2s Ro6binso-2n at Ther-4e the w4if-3e of-2 5a deceased worker-4 5began colle-2c4ti-3ng relate-3d5 deat-3h thi-3s 4was her e-3xc4lu3sive-3 l3egal-3 rem-4edy 4at t-4h5e time Id a4t Mor-2e tha-3n 5two year-3s late3r the Suprem-3e Cour4t 3decl-3a4red-2 compe-3nsa3ti-3o5n ben efit Se4e Knicke-3rbo4cker-3 Ice C3o Ste-3wart U.S3 By t5hat tim-3e me ba4rr-3ed u4nder-2 New3 York law See3 Robinson N.E3 at was not cognizable compe-3nsa3ti-3o5n was the e-3x5clu rela4ted death ecaus-3e4 the spouse-2s of d5ecea-3sed wor3ker-2s coul-3d n5ot have-3 brou3ght a tim-3e4ly 3cla-3im fo4r wrongful death5 base-2d on a work related inj-3u5ry before Knicker-3bo5cker-3 Ice he4 Court of-3 Appe als-3 affirmed 3the pr-4o5pri-3e4ty of-3 th3e4 re-2vival stat4ut Id a4t d5eci-3s4ion i-3n G7all-3ewsk4i H4entz-3 Co sim-4ila5rl-3y ad4dre-2ssed reviving for-3merly 3tim4e barred cau3ses of-4 ac3ti-3on5 that-4 c4laimants were eff3ect-3iv3ely pre4vente-3d from 4asse-3rting in a timel-4y manner In Gal5lewsk-2i 5the C4ourt-3 of Appeal-3s he3ld t-3h5at s4tat-4u5te enacte-3d 5to r-3e4troactively Case Document Filed Page of tol-3l 3the s4tat-4u5te of-4 5li-3m3it-3a4tions for-3 ind3iv3idual-4s 4residing in Axis o5ccupi-3ed cou3ntr-3ies dur4ing3 Wor-2ld War-3 II comported with d5ue pr-2ocess-3 Gallewsk i a citize-3ns and 3res-3idents of-2 5occupi-3ed 4terri-3to3ry wer-2e 4duri-3ng such occupation 3under-2 a prac5ti-3ca3l and tot-3a4l i-3nab4ility to comme4nce ac-3tion in4 the c-3ourts o5f t-3his S3tate to protect an3d ef-2fectua3te their Id a Becau4se t-3hese pla4in3ti-3ffs were u3nable-3 to 3assert-2 t3im-3e4ly claims under-3 5th3e appli-4c4able-3 5limi-2tations pe6ri-3od the C4ourt-3 of Appeals in Gall3ewski ret-4roact4ive toll-3ing of the 3other-4wise 3a4ppli-3cab3le li3mi-3tations pe6ri-3od co4mported wit due4 proc-2ess Id Likewis-2e in both Matter of McCann 4v W-2alsh Co4nstr-3 Co an4d Hym3owitz Eli Lill-2y Co cla-3ims rev-2ival prov3isi-4ons wer4e 4held to co4m3port-3 with du5e pr-2ocess-3 w7hen the-3y add4res-3sed cla-3ims th3at could not-2 hav4e been tim-2e4ly3 ass-2erted 5Both case-3s p4res-3ented cl3aims by pl-2a4intiff-4s who were af-4fli4cted by lat-4en4t d3ise-3ases w3here sympt-3o5ms did not t-3yp5ically a-3pp5ear-3 5unti-3l 3after 2th3e appli-4c4able-3 5limi-2tations pe6ri-3od exp4ir-3ed.4 Mat-3ter of 4M3cCann at a sl-3ow starti5ng or i-3n Hym3owitz at t-3he expo3sur-2e to the d4rug di-3e4thyl-3s4tilbestro3l 3(D7ES by pre)-2g5nant m-4o5thers auses-3 a See Hym3owitz at see al-4so Swe5ener Saint Gobain Perfor-3manc6e Plastic-2s C6orp No CV WL at 4Feb citi-3n5g Hym3owitz and at3ter-3 5of cCann in3 holdi-3ng that CP3LR comported with due pr-2ocess-3 5becaus-3e 4the claims inj-3uries s3temmi-3ng envir-4on5mental c-3on5tamin3ati-4on5 to pursue claims that would ot3her-2wise be-2 ti-3m3e Case Document Filed Page of The New3 Yor-4k Court of A3ppeal-3s alr4eady has dec3ided t-4ha4t nu5mer-4ous c4lai5mant-4s 4asse-3rt6ing all-4eg4ati-4on5s o4f s-2exual-3 5abu4se were not-3 5pre-2vented from ass-3e4rting4 their cl-4a4im-3s4 in a tim-3e4ly 3manne-3r under-2 the fo5rm-3erly app4licable-3 5li-3m3itat3ions p-2eriod See Zumpano Quinn E.2d N.Y4 In Zu6mpano the Cour-2t addr-4e4ssed actions 3all-4eg4ing cler4gy sexua-2l abuse for-3 whic4h the sta-3tu3te of-4 5limi-2tations ha6d long e-2xpi red but the plaintiffs sou4ght equita-2bl3e tolli-3ng of 3th3eir-4 li-3m3it-3a4ti-3ons p4eri-4ods and 3a4sser-4ted equi4table estoppe4l aga-3in3st de4fendants Id at T6he Court held at the motion t-3o di3smiss s-3tage that-4 a4ll-3 p5lai-4n5ti-3ffs in bo3th 3the i-4nd5ivi-3du5al a-3nd the per-2son ac Id at C7onclude-3d th3e Court E-2ach 16p5lai-4n5ti-3ff 13was 14awa5re 17of 11the 17sex3ual 17abuse-2 14or 16she suffe4red-2 14at the 397hands3 396defenda5nt 396priests Cert-2ainly 389th3ey 395had 395su4ff-3icien4t knowledge 104bri-3ng 105in3tentional-4 104cause-3 101act-3ion 106aga3in3st 107the indi-3vidu3al 182p5ri-3es3ts 182Pl4aintiffs 181wer4e 175likewise 181awa5re 182th3at 177the 172pri-3es3ts were 176empl-4o5yees 176the 172dioce-3ses 174could 177have rought-3 174a4cti-4ons4 agai-3ns4t 28the 27d5ioce-3ses 28lea-3s4t 28invest4igat-4ed 29whet4h5er 29bas3is 27for 31such act-3ion3s exi-3s4ted Id The Court t-3hus affirmed t-3he d4ismiss-3a4l of-3 bo5th ac-3tions as time ba4rr-3ed4 The fede-3ral 5dist-4ric5t court3 deci-3s4ion i-3n Wor-2ld Trad3e Center a4lso is instructive While that deci-3s4ion was ul-3tima3tel-4y 5vacat-4ed b5ased only on a threshol-3d s4tanding is-2sue not pre-2sen3ted here the c-3ourt there i-2nva4li-3da4ted a claims revival provision under-2 5th3e New Y4ork Stat-3e Due Proces-2s4 Clause on the sam-4e b4asis ass-2erted by4 Ms axwe5ll-3 he4re.-2 The 5sta-3tu3te at is-3s4ue in t-4ha4t cas-2e revived3 other-4wise 3time ba4rr-3ed 4claims-3 by d5isaster relief workers-3 who were i-3nju3red duri-3ng the cle-3anup and 3res-3cue 3eff-4o5rts fol-3lowing 3th3e Septe-3mb3er terrorist-3 5attac3k on the-2 Wo4rl-3d Trade Center-3 Aft3e4r c-2anvass th3e is-3sue 3the dist-2ric5t court3 held t-4ha4t thi-3s c3laims except-4ion 3for-3 5rev-2ival statu4tes-3 and 4is unconst-3itut4io3nal unde-3r 3th3e Due Proce-2ss Cla-2use o3f t-3he New Y4ork St-2ate C3onst-2it-3u5ti on In re Worl-3d Trade Ctr Lower Manhat-4tan Dis-2as4ter Sit-2e Li3ti-3g Supp 3d S.D.N5.Y Case Document Filed Page of vacat-3ed on o4ther-3 ground4s F.3d 2d Cir-2 The dist-4ric5t court3 re-2asone-2d 5th3at unlike-2 in dis-3cus3se3(d above Gallewski Robinson Mat-3ter of 4M3cCann and Hym3owitz t3he pla-3in3tiff-2s 4in World Trade Center-3 were pr-3ot3ected by a r-2ul3e that-4 5the limitati-2ons p4eri-4o5d on the-2ir cl3aim-4s d4id not begin t-3o 5run u3nti-3l 3they had discovere3d their inj-3uries I at T6hey thus-3 did3 not face begin a timel-4y lawsui-3t 3as in Gallewski Robinson a4nd othe-2r c4as3es i-3n which cla-3im rev3ival has been 3allowed I at he dis-3tric3t cour also not3ed tha-3t 3many plaintiffs h3ad f-2iled timely lawsuits Id at he cl-3aims revival provision in t-3h5e CV3A is i-2n material respects l-3ik3e the-3 o5ne at-3 i3ssue in Wor-2ld Trad3e Center In b3oth i-3nstanc5es t-3he 4legi-4s4lature-2 pu5rported t-3o 5rev-2ive claims by plaintiffs who were not-3 pre-2ven4ted fr-3om asserting them in a timely fashion In Wor-2ld3 Trade Cente-2r the dist-4ric5t court3 noted t-4ha4t the le-2gi3slature had give-2n 5as i-3ts justific5ati-4on a4mon3g othe-2r 3thi-3ng5s tha-3t cer-3tain c4laimant-4s wer4e 4given incorr3ect-3 in3formation about-3 5th3eir-4 work con4dit-3ions and did not-3 kno5w the applicab3le lim-3ita5ti-3on5s per-3iods e4e id at B4ut t-3he court determined4 those-3 were not grounds-2 for-3 5enacting claims sta-3tu3t Id T4 Id at to r-3ev4ive forme3rl-3y5 ti-3m3e ba4rr-3ed4 cla-3ims bas3e4d on cer-3tain all-4eg4ed se-2xu5al a-3buse do5e4s not-2 comport with the N4ew Y3ork St-2ate-3 sit-4ua4ti-3ons 4in 3which sur-2vived due proces-3s 4scrutiny Pl-3a4in tiff-2 he4re was 5not pr-3even3ted fr-3om asserting tim-2e4ly claims and they wer-3e n4ot bar-4red by 7law in Case Document Filed Page of To the contr3ary-2 Pla3int-3iff4 admits-2 she 3had no dif-4fic5ult-3y reportin6g her-2 allega3tions years a4go to her-2 s4ister-2 5and Vanity F3air-4 Magazi4ne and t-3ha4t 3her-2 sister-3 h5a no probl-3e4m r-3eporting her all-4eg4ati-4on5s to the NY3PD and t-4he FBI5 Compl That 3those-3 orga-2n5izations did n4ot r-3espond as Pla-3in3tiff-2 5wished i-3s a3ll the m-3o5re 2reason she s-2ho5uld ha-2ve filed this-2 l3awsui3t yea-3rs-2 5ago at sh6e was prevented fr-3o5m filing her claim gre-2at powe3r,3 wealt-3h and 4connections that-2 5they had displ-3ay4ed to her see De6nnis 5WL at-2 to sur3vive mo3ti-3o5n to di-3smiss,3 compl-4a4int-3 5must-4 plaus-3ib3ly all3ege t-3ha4t i-3t 3is timely P6laintiff-2 ad4mits3 that-4 upon 5leaving the-3 5ranch in New Mexico she ne-2ver-2 5ag4ain ha-3d con4tact wit-2h 5eit-4h5er 2Mr Epste4in or-3 Ms Maxw3ell-4 And she does no3t a llege that-4 e4it-3he4r 3Mr Eps-2tein 5or M-2s Maxw4ell-4 eve3r t-3hreatene-2d h5er or coerced h4er 2in3to not-3 fi6li-3ng a 4ti-3m3ely lawsui-3t The3 compl-4a4int-3 5is devoid of any plausibl3e al-3legat4ion 3that-4 Pl4aintiff4 could not-4 h5ave sue-3d Ms Ma-3xwel4l in a timely 3fas-3hion ove4r a twenty four ye4ar peri-2od Thus5 under-2 New3 York law it-4 woul5d viol-3a4te due proce-2ss 3to 3all-4ow C4PLR4 To all-3ow CP3LR ty o3f t-3he judi-3c4ial sy4stem and deny4 Ms Ma-3xwe6ll-3 he4r c-2onstit3uti-3ona4l r-3igh3t 3to def-4end h4ers-3elf Ms 3Maxwell-4 would have t-3o re-2bu5t allegations-3 o5f an indivi-3du5al w4ho cla-3ims 5she as as-3sa3ult-3ed ne3arl-4y 5thi-3rty yea4rs-2 ago Ms-2 Ma3xwell would also be called to ans-3wer4 the f-4or cond4uct of-4 M4r Epst-3ein who 4is de-3ad s4tatute of-4 5li-3m3it-3a4ti-3ons de3fen-2s4e with t-4he Matter-2 5of W-3orld Trade Ctr at under-2sco3res-3 the due proc-2ess li3mitation Final-3ly 3there ar-3e s3tr-3ong,5 act-3ua4l not-3 5mer-4e4ly hypothetical-2 5reli3ance i-4n5ter-4e4sts at i-4s4sue on 5the sta-3tu3tes-3 o5f l-3imitations th4at ha-3ve ex3isted for-3 m3any 4year-3s Case Document Filed Page of est-3ab4li-3shed 3a com-3p ens3ation fund f-3o5r 3all-4eg4ed victims the Voluntary Cl-2a4ims Resolu3tion Progra-2m in t-3he U.S V4ir-3gin I-3s4land Plai-3nt3iff and her-3 siste3r Maria Farmer hav4e p4ubli-3c4ly pr-3ov5ided notic-2e of t-3he4ir-3 in3tent to pa4rt-3icip5at in 3the Program-3 So h6ave ther all5eged vi-3c4ti-3m3s4 of Mr Eps-2tein It under-2m3ines-3 5the i-4n5tegrit-3y 5of t-3he 4judi-3c4ial system 3f o5r s-2ome individuals-2 5to parti-3c4ipat-4e 4in t-3h5is compe-3nsa3ti-3o5n fund whil-3e4 other-4s a3tte5mpt-3 to 3rev-2iv3e long exp4ired cl-2a4im-3s 4in 3cour-2t i Plai-2ntiff ha4s not pl-2ausib4ly pl-2ead e4quitable-3 tol6li-3ng or es3top4pel Plai-3nt3iff points to two o5th3er 2bases for the tim-2e4li-3ne4ss of-3 her-2 5co4mpl-3a4int-3 3equ4it-3ab4le t-4o5lling4 and equi-3tabl5e est-4oppe4l Compl Equit-2able to4ll-3ing 3is unav4ail-4ab4le in Ne4w Y4ork f-3or stat-2e 4claims-3 Jang Hoi Choi Beautri5 Realt-3y Corp N.Y A4pp Dept-3 In a-2ny ev4e4nt invoca-3tion o6f t-3he doc3trin4e would f-2ail 5for-3 the sam3e4 re-2asons-2 he4r 3relianc-3e on e3quit-3ab4le e-3s4to3ppel f-4a4il-3s These equ-2ita5ble doc-3t def-2endan3t ass-2ert a stat3ute of-4 5li-3m3it-3a4ti-3ons de3fen-2s4e See id equita-2b5le t-4o5lli4ng re-2quires 4p oof t-3ha4t a um7pano at spar-3ing3ly Gei4s4s Supp at As xplai-4ne4d above p5roves that there was no impediment t5o of basis fo3r cause of 4act-3ion withi4n the lim-3ita5tions per-2iod 3and yet-3 he failed t-2o b5ring a t3im-3e4ly Jang 4Ho C4hoi at As i-3n Zumpano Q4uinn sexua-2l abuse5 she 3alle4gedly-4 su4ff-3e4red-2 at the ha3nds of-2 Ms-3 5Maxwell-4 Certa-3in3ly3 had suf-2ficient kn5owledge t-3o 5bri-3ng an Case Document Filed Page of cannot sur-2v5iv3e a m-3ot3ion 3to di-3smiss Plai-3nt3iff does not allege t6hat M-3s Maxw4ell-4 or Mr 5Epstei-4n 5thr-3e4ate-3ned o4r c-2o5erc-3ed he3r i-3n5to3 not fi-3ling a law4suit-4 or that 3s4he wa mi-3s4led as t-3o 5the appli-2c4able-3 s4tatute of limitations In fa5ct Pl-3a4int-3iff does not-3 eve3n all-4eg4e any conta-3c4t bet-4w7een her-4s4elf-4 5a4nd Ms Ma-3x5well or-4 M4r E4pste-3in after5 The com-2plai5nt poi-3nts to nothi-3ng th3at act-3ua4ll-3y or e7ff-3ec3ti-3ve4ly prevent-2ed Plai5nti-3ff fr-2o5m filin her-2 lawsui-3t 3for-3 5mor-3e 4than twenty year-4s What-3 i3s ul-2ti6mat-4e4ly di-3sp4osit-4iv3e though is t-2ha4t th3e com-3pl3aint-4 5point-3s to not5hing M-2s Maxwell-4 a4llegedly di-4d 5in3 the ye-3a4r b5efo-2re it-3s 4filing that prev4ente-3d laint3iff from filin5g the l-4awsu5it Assumi-3ng tolli-2ng 5could ap one year-4 be4for-3e 4the c-3omp3laint was f-3iled.5 And because t-4he relevant st-2a4tut-3e o4f li4mi-3tations in New Y3ork i-3s one ye-2a4r C5PLR4 even 3to3ll-3ing 3cannot-3 5save Plai-3n5tiff-2 ret-4a4li-3a4ti-3on 5e4xcept-3 where 3dure-2ss is an 4ele-3m3ent of-4 5th3e caus-3e o4f Gei4ss Supp 3d at Id quot ation omit4ted Feder-2al Rule of Civil Pr4ocedur-3e 4require-2s a3t a minimum-2 5th3at co4mpl-3a4int-3 giv3e eac-3h5 def-2endan3t Ferr3o Ry Express-3 Age5ncy I-3nc F.2d 2d Cir-2 see also Simmons Abruzzo F.3d 2d Cir-3 He6re,-2 hen Plaintiff-2 ha4s no 4fac-3ts to a4ll-3eg4e agai-4ns4t Ms Maxwell-3 s4he id id id 0B id3 id 0B id3 id id id a nd h5ad a pl-3an 4to 0B id T)4his Cour-2t 3shoul-2d disre4gar-2d the alle6gati-4ons 4that-4 5mer-4e4ly lum-3p togeth5er 2Ms Ma-3x5well wit-4h M4r Epst-3e4in S5ee Ochre LLC Rockwell Architectu4re Planni-4ng Desi-3gn P6.C No CIV KB3F 3WL at Dec def-2endan3ts that-2 complaint must-4 p5rovide a plausible factua3l basis t-3o d5isting3uish t-4he 4con4duct of-4 llegati-4on5s against-2 e4ach def-2endan3t supports-2 di3smi5ssal-4 unde4r t-3h5e st-3anda3rds-2 s4et f-4orth in T6wom4bly and Iqbal Lu6mpi-3ng asi-3de 4ther-4e 4is nothing 3in 3the c-3omp3laint t-3o show t4hat M-3s Maxw4ell-4 eve3r did or sa-2id anything t-3o pre-2vent mislead or-3 d5iscourage 2Pla3in3ti-3ff fr-2o5m fil4in3g the c-3omp3lai-4n5t i-3n a 4tim4ely m-4ann4er Case Document Filed Page of cannot-3 pl3aus3ibl-3y a4ll-3ege 3th3at t-4he 4statute of limitati4ons was tol-4led for nearl-2y5 thi-3rty yea4rs-2,5 when she a4fter l-3e4aving th3e New Mexic-2o ra-2nch 4in II IF OT DI-3SMISSE3D TH-2E C4ASE-4 AGAIN3ST MS MAXWELL4 SH-5OULD4 BE4 T-2RA4NS-6FER5RED THE DIST4RIC3T OF 3NE4W MEXICO Th Ms Ma-3xwel4l See Fed R7 Civ Ti4tle subse-2c4ti-3on does 3authorize-3 ve4nue her-3e be3c4ause M-3s M3axwell-3 i3s not a r-4es3ident of New Y3ork nor a-2ppa4ren-2tly is 3the E3sta-3te of Mr E3pste-3in A7nd subsec-3tio6n als-3o does aut-4ho5ri-3ze v3enue her-4e b4e4cause-3 th3e all4egat-3ion3s against-2 Ms 3Ma3xwell c-3once3rn c-2onduct occur-3ring ex4clus-3iv3ely in 3New3 Mexi-3co and not-3 New3 York Ms-3 Maxwell-4 5all-4eg4edly s-3e4xuall-4y assa-3ul3ted plaintif-3f 3in Ne4w Mexico 4(b5att-4e4ry and h4eld laint3if-3f 3agai-3ns4t her-4 5will-3 in New 6Mexi-3co conduct-3 occ3urr-3ed in Ne3w Mexico venue is improper i-3n 5thi-3s 4Court under-4 U.S3.C Thus nder-2 5Fed C4iv a4nd U.S.C and thi-3s Cour4t should dism-4iss th4e 4compl-4a4int-3 o5r transfer-2 5the case aga3inst-4 5her 5the Distr-2ict o5f New Mexi-2co Alter-4na4ti-3ve4ly3 be se-2vered from the clai5ms 5given t-4he 4allegat-3ion3s agai-3ns4t Mr-4 5Epstei-4n and 4the i-4nab4ilit-2y 5of M-2s Maxw4ell-4 to effec6ti-3ve4ly def-4en4d her-2self no4w that M-3r Epstei-4n is dead ven if-4 v5enue i-3s pr-2op5er 2here against Mr-3 Eps5tein w5hich i-4s dou4btf-3ul sinc-3e the es3tate is appare5ntl-3y a 4res-3id3e4nt of-3 th3e U.S V4ir-3gin I-3s4lands it-3 5is im3prope-2r i-3n 5the case agai-3ns4t Ms-3 5Maxwell-4 T6he cas-3e ag3ainst Ms M-3ax4well s-3hould 3proc-2eed a4t all i-3n New3 Mexi-3co assertion of e-2qui3tabl-4e 4tol-3ling and est-4oppe4l.3 See Sl-3usser6 Vantage B3uil-3ders-2 5Inc P.3d N.M App describi-3ng 5burde-2n of e-2q5uit-3ab4le t-4o5llin4g and est-4opp5el unde-3r Ne4w Mexico l-4a4w Case Document Filed Page of ONCLUS-2 ION For hese re4 asons-2 this Court hould dism-4 iss th4 cas-2 or-2 tr-3 an4 s4 fer-4 th3 case agai-3 ns4 Ms-3 Maxwell-4 to the Dist-2 rict o3 New Mexico Dated:-3 May Respect-3 fully4 subm-2 itted Laura A Me-2 nninge-2 Laura-2 A Menninger-4 L4 ON ORGAN AN East-2 th Avenue Denver CO Phone Fax lm-3 enn4 inger hmfl-4 aw.c5 om Attor-3 ney for G4 hisl-4 aine M5 axwell Case Document Filed Page of CE4 RTIFIC-4 AT4 OF SERVICE I erti3 fy ha4 on May I iled5 thi-3 Correct4 ed Mem-3 oran7 dum of-3 Law in Support of Defendant-4 which wil-2 send noti-2 c4 o4 he fil3 ing to all-3 pa4 rties-2 of eco3 rd Nico4 le Simm4 ons Case Document Filed Page of
41,740 characters