« NYCB 5/15 - Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet & Tschaikovsky Suite No. 3 | Main | NYCB – There is no such thing as too much. »

May 18, 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Amar looked so happy up on that stage.

I was hoping that the audience would welcome him back, but I was so moved by how boisterous the audience got. I was not expecting that, at all. It takes a lot to get the NYCB audience to cheer like that! I was happy I was there.

So true, yukionna.

"Of course, the plaintiff’s lover should never have made and shared the photo/video without permission – let’s be clear about that." This is just 10% of your third paragraph but is the only thing that will matter in court.

Hardly. Think back on your own experiences on Manhattan jury duty -- not that we want them described here, but just think back on them. There is a lot more that matters.

I've served on four juries in Manhattan and have been pleasantly surprised that emotion plays a very small role vs. allowable testimony. But remember thatr juries tend to render decisions based on what is presented at trial, not what is kicked around subjectively in public. Think about cases where verdicts go against prevailing public expectations and interviews with jurors reveal that decisions were based on what happened at the trial, not in the papers or on TV.

My jury experience has been quite different -- especially grand jury in which I was horrified at how jurors refused to indict on rape or assault because they concluded from the appearance and behavior of the victim that she wasn't a victim at all.

Not sure where you get the idea that juries tend to render decisions based only on what is presented at trial. Jurors bring all of their own experiences, those experiences of their acquaintances, and everything they know and have heard into a jury deliberation.

Just going to through in my two cents here and would love to hear opposing views. I don't see this going to trial and I think this entire case will get thrown out, or at the minimum, all defendants except Finlay will be dismissed (he may go to trial, however). Waterbury is claiming all the defendants (let's leave Finlay out of this as we know he is the culprit) were negligent to her and specifically had a "duty" to her under the umbrella of SAB which her attorney has also incorrectly stretched and associated NYCB. The problem is not one of the defendants owed her a responsibility, or was negligent, because she was NOT a student at SAB at the time of the allegations and, as we all know, was never even involved with NYCB; furthermore, no one at NYCB, whether an employee or donor, would ever have legal responsibility to an SAB student as they are clearly separate entities. This is all a shameful parade by her attorney and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the judge reprimanded him for a frivolous, ill-conceived lawsuit, especially since he seemingly did no basic fact-checking or due diligence.

I'll have to agree with you, NYer.

Poor Hux! He is always so smooth that I was pretty astonished when he fell over. Watching Ashley all I could think of was how much Tiler has been missed this season. I was surprised that they have paired Joe Gordon with Megan Fairchild for his upcoming debut — I was under the impression that Fairchild/Garcia is the new Fairchild/deLuz. Maybe it’s best to have experience paired with inexperience in T&V? Of the soloists I think Indiana Woodward could give it a shot.

And I was so there for Amar. I’d forgotten his incredible stage presence. I was so glad when the crowd started cheering.

Bouder and Huxley are an odd pairing to begin with. Their stage personas are too different.

Something looks off with Bouder's port de bras. I can't really put my finger on it, but it's looks like she keeps her elbows bent when they should be straight. It just looks weird, especially since she already isn't blessed with long limbs. But I was speedy footwork remains super impressive.

The existence of even worse suffering in the world doesn't negate Waterbury's trauma at Finlay's hands.

By that logic, Ramasar and Catazaro didn't suffer by (temporarily) being fired from NYCB, because there are other people who can't work at all due to disability or illness.

What Finlay did was a gross violation of trust and would certainly inflict great mental and emotional harm. There are more grey areas in this case than you are recognizing.

Whatever Finlay did may have been a violation of trust which makes the plaintiff a victim of a violation of trust, NOT a victim of sexual assault. Ramasar and Catazaro didn't violate her trust as they owed her none. It's a hard truth.

Further, I didn't write or suggest that the existence of worse suffering negates the plaintiff's suffering. What I put forth was her use of exaggeration and trying to incorporate "every woman's worst nightmare" into her claim. She has a complete disconnect with regard to understanding what is happening in the world, this country, and this city if she thinks picture taking and picture sharing qualify as sexual "assault" - which is how she has continually characterized it – and "every woman's worst nightmare."

I'm not sure how one can say that what Finlay did "would certainly inflict great mental and emotional harm." The plaintiff hasn't offered any evidence of it yet. The language in the complaint about her "suffering" is boilerplate language which this particular attorney has used over and over again in other lawsuits. All of her suffering needs to be proven. How people just assume that she has incurred great harm without any evidence of it is incredulous.

I'm now beginning to think that the reason the plaintiff didn't take her complaint to the police was that her lawyer was afraid that a grand jury would refuse to return an indictment. How would her lawsuit then go if she couldn't get a criminal indictment?

Haglund, did you see this? Ugh.


Yup, this morning my Inbox was loaded with outrage from readers.

I think the audience has made it perfectly clear how they feel about Ramasar’s return.

"I'm now beginning to think that the reason the plaintiff didn't take her complaint to the police was that her lawyer was afraid that a grand jury would refuse to return an indictment. How would her lawsuit then go if she couldn't get a criminal indictment?"

Haglund, I've been keeping my silence about this subject on your blog and will continue to do so but for the record, the reason Waterbury "didn't go to the police" is because sexting involving people above minor age isn't against the law in NY State.

Sexting law with respect to minors is an ever-evolving Federal and state body of laws, but when the parties are above the age of consent... it's the Wild West out there.

So whatever your opinions about Waterbury, this is the reason she just didn't "go to the police."

Note: I am not a lawyer and would welcome correction.

The sixth through 11th causes of action in the amended lawsuit are for assault and battery.

Good luck to her with that...

Thank you for sharing that article Juliet. Of course Mr. Seibert has the right to review the performance and share his opinions under "Critic's Notebook". It was a lovely review of the ballet itself. He brings up his issues with the way in which Amar Ramasar and NYCB made his return to performing but he does not offer ideas as to how he would have improved it.

It sounds to me like it was handled in the best way possible. The fans were happy and that is the bottom line when the company is largely funded by donors.

Welcome back Amar!

Hi Haglund, I'm a bit tardy in my reaction, but I was there for that Saturday matinee performance, and I was one of the people hooting and hollering for Amar's return. I was thrilled to see him back on stage, and in fine form. I was very disappointed to read Brian Seibert's NYT reaction. According to him, Amar was looking 'more than a little clueless'? Seibert's way off base.

True about Seibert, AND he failed to credit Gia Kourlas for contributing to his article, to his sentiments, and to his own cluelessness. The NYT has no problem with the fact that its own gay chief dance critic was arrested and jailed on suspicion of pedophilia for taking unauthorized photos of little children, and the NYT has no problem ignoring the sexual criminality of a gay dancer who it helped popularize. Nor does the NYT publicly worry about the sexual predators in its own office. Just saying, there seems to be a real imbalance in its coverage.

Also, there is no doubt that the NYT has engaged in race-baiting by planting huge pictures of a black man as a perpetrator within articles that reference and link to coverage of a beautiful young white blond woman who claims she's a victim.

NYT knows full well that it has readers in Red America who wouldn't think twice about climbing in their trucks and driving to New York to settle the score for the pretty lady. That would give the paper one heck of a series of clicks on its website.

There is no question that the NYT is engaging in race-baiting in its coverage of Amar Ramasar.

The comments to this entry are closed.