Updated 10/17observations 10/15

Kind of a slow ballet news day, so we thought we'd report on the cub's weekly weigh-in this morning. Yes, the cub is required to be weighed every week AND his girth is measured -- in front of everybody while he is naked. In fact, the humiliating weigh-in and belly measuring are videoed and then transmitted without his permission or knowledge to the entire world. Today he nearly broke the scales at 5.4 lbs. But the shock was that in one week, his girth went from 13.7 inches to 15.9 inches. You just know that if this little guy added 2.2 inches to his girth in one week during a performance season, he would be hearing loud growls from Papa Bear in the costume department.

Perhaps some will view this as an insensitive but dazzlingly clever lede into our report that this afternoon, Chase Finlay's attorney filed an appeal in the NY Supreme Court. From the appeal document:

Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review, the grounds for reversal, or modification to be advanced and the specific relief sought on appeal.

1.  Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the cause of action for violation of Administrative Code Section 10-180, when Plaintiff has alleged that she was secretly photographed, and the legislative history is clear that the Section is only to apply to intimate images taken with knowledge and consent.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the cause of action for violation of Administrative Code Section 10-180, and implying intent on behalf of Defendant, when the clear language of the Code requires intent to cause "economic, physical or substantial emotional harm"; such intent was not properly pied, and the legislative history is clear that Administrative Code 10-180 does not apply to disclosures made with an attempt to titillate or brag.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the cause of action for violation of Administrative Code Section 10-180, when Section 10-180 is otherwise pre-empted by State law, an argument raised below, but not addressed by the Court in its decision.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying, without explanation, that branch of Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3024(b) to excise scandalous and prejudicial material from the Complaint, particularly when the trial court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint against all other Defendants, and otherwise dismissed all causes of action except one against Defendant Finlay.

and so it goes...

UPDATE 10/17:

Finlay's counsel's formal filing is a masterful take-down of the plaintiff. He is now asking the court to award compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages. The Counter Claims and Additional Relevant Facts which begin on page 37 are quite stunning revelations. Many have watched the plaintiff's slow-motion train wreck over the past couple of years, but seeing it all condensed in this filing suggests a very vengeful and troubling exploitation of the legal system. We'll just have to wait and see if plaintiff's attorney can recover from this.

 

 

Comments

[Shawn]

Masterful is right Haglund, thanks for the link. If there's any justice, she'll be on the hook for damages and attorneys' fees, none of which should be dischargeable in bankruptcy because she acted with malice.

[NYer]

She first tried to extort two individuals, ironically enough one of them who she wound up NOT naming in her lawsuit, and then she tried to blackmail said two individuals. Furthermore, her text conversations which have been published by Finlay's counsel, clearly show she not only knew about the naked pictures he took, which one can conclude she gave permission to take, but she also ASKED him to send naked photos. On top of all of this she has used the same language (and often times even worse language) she had sued the defendants for using in their text messages. I would venture to say this girl is going down HARD. What a false prophet for all these young girls! She made it look like she was a victim and raised support from so many women, but in fact, she was the real issue. This is NOT a girl that young girls should look up to at all. She also disgraces any women that actually experienced REAL sexual abuse, etc.

[Haglund]

I think the goal has always been to get to the document discovery process and then fish for items that the defendants would pay handsomely not to disclose in court proceedings or to the public. Finlay's lawyer is smart to request that discovery proceedings be delayed until after his appeal has been decided. If Finlay wins that appeal, it effectively ends the case for everyone. But in order to keep all of the publicity going, the plaintiff may appeal the decisions relative to NYCB, SAB and the other plaintiffs. It is so self-destructive. She seems to believe that there will be some honor in going down in flames, but the reality is that she's just damaging her own reputation and future. Pre-employment screenings wouldn't miss something like this, and a cursory look at her behavior throughout would pretty much end opportunities.

[NYer]

I don't disagree with you. The defendants can also petition to have discovery sealed as well - I think. I believe Finlay's counsel also mentioned this too. You have to remember that there are plenty more tidbits about Waterbury to be exposed too if this goes to discovery. I would have to assume her lawyer will warn her about this, but based on previous behavior I don't think it matters to her as you alluded to, or her counsel.

I'm very curious what the five other defendants are thinking. I'd venture to say that NYCB and SAB are just going to let this go as it isn't worth their time. On the other hand, maybe they'll want to make a point not to falsely accuse as both of their reputations have been tarnished. The other three defendants clearly have causes of action against her. The question is the same as if Waterbury were to win. What can they reasonably expect from her? She's most likely judgment proof. If, however, they can sue Merson as well for his outright unethical behavior as an officer of the court then there may be something for them to gain financially. I actually feel really bad for all three of them as they did absolutely nothing wrong. Yes, their texts and behavior was not great, but hey, this is a free country to act and say as you please. From a legal perspective, they did nothing wrong. One of the first things you learn in law school is to leave morality outside of the court; morality is relative and what you think is immoral may perfectly be moral to me. It has no place in the courtroom. Just facts.

[Haglund]

Finlay's lawyer has made a point in his appeal that the Plaintiff has been removing evidence from her Instagram account and that because this lawsuit was in process, she had an obligation to preserve the evidence. For a short time, someone published a Waterbury Archive I-gram account to help her remember what she had removed from her page. LOL

[Frank Bones]

Appeal issue 1 is weak IMO and should have been left out. In any case, the thing that I find most disturbing in the Answer is in paragraphs 379 and 380. Nguyen only got 6 months ! Admittedly, financial fraud crimes make me especially nuts but he should have received a minimum of 6 years. A six month slap on the wrist is outrageous.

“ Nguyen is a convicted embezzler of approximately $335,000-from a 96-year- old blind man for whom he worked as a home health care aide.‘

“Nguyen pleaded guilty to multiple felonies on or about June 4, 2018 in the New York State Supreme Court, Criminal Term including Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and Endangering the Welfare of an Incompetent Person in the First Degree and was sentenced to a six-month term of imprisonment.”