Court records
- Format
- Set
- Court Records
- Text
- Searchable
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 1:19-cv-10476-PGG-DCF Document 13 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 3
BSF
BO IE S
SC HILLER
FLE XN ER
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
Email: jischiller@bsfllp.com
January 29, 2020
VIA ECF
The Honorable Paul G. Gardephe
District Court Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: Helm v. Indyke et al.,
Case No. 19-cv-10476
Dear Judge Gardephe,
Pursuant to Individual Rule IV(A), Plaintiff Teresa Helm hereby responds to Defendants’
request for a pre-motion conference in connection with their anticipated motion to dismiss. Dkt.
12. Plaintiff’s claims are timely under New York’s statutes of limitation and the doctrine of
equitable estoppel, and Defendants’ proposed motion “to dismiss” Plaintiff’s request for punitive
damages is procedurally improper. For the following reasons, the Court should deny Defendants’
anticipated motion in its entirety.
I. Plaintiff’s Claims Are Timely Under New York Law.
Plaintiff’s claims are timely under New York’s CPLR § 215(8)(a), which provides:
“Whenever it is shown that a criminal action against the same defendant has been commenced
with respect to the event or occurrence from which a claim governed by this section arises, the
plaintiff shall have at least one year from the termination of the criminal action . . . to commence
the civil action.” (Emphasis added). Here, Epstein’s criminal action in this District terminated on
August 29, 2019. Compl. ¶ 35. Because Plaintiff filed the Complaint less than three months later,
the action is timely under CPLR § 215(8)(a). Defendants’ argumen
[…]