Case 1:19-cv-10474-NRB Document 14 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 3 BSF BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Email: [email protected] January 29, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: v. Indyke et al., Case No. 19-cv-10474 Dear Judge Buchwald, Pursuant to Individual Rule 2(B), Plaintiff hereby responds to Defendants' request for a pre-motion conference in connection with their anticipated motion to dismiss. Dkt. 13. 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. 1. 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 plaintiffshall have at least one yearfrom the termination ofthe criminal action . . . to commence the civil action." (Emphasis added). Here, Epstein's criminal action in this District terminated on August 29, 2019. Compl. 34. Because Plaintiff filed the Complaint less than three months later, the action is timely under CPLR § 215(8)(a). Defendants' arguments against CPLR § 215(8)(a)'s application to these facts are meritless. First, Defendants' argument that CPLR § 215(8)(a) does not apply because Plaintiff was not named as a victim in Epstein's indictment is incorrect. New York courts have held that CPLR § 215(8)(a) is "plain, clear and unambiguous" that it does not require that the plaintiff be "the victim or the specific person upon whom the crime had been committed." Clemens v.