BSFI Case 1:19-cv-10475-LGS-DCF Document 22 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 4 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Email: [email protected] January 31, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield District Court Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: v. In vke et al. Case No. 19-cv-10475 Dear Judge Schofield, Pursuant to Individual Rules III.A.1 and III.C.2, Plaintiff hereby responds to Defendants' request for a pm-motion conference in connection with their anticipated motion to dismiss. Dkt. 17. 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 masons, the Court should deny Defendants' anticipated motion in its entirety.' I. Plaintiff's Claims Are Timely Under New York lArn. Plaintiff's claims are timely under the Child Victims Act (CVA), CPLR § 214-g, which says that: [E]very civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, . . . is hereby revived, and action thereon may be commenced . . . not later than one year and six months after the effective date of this section. The Complaint alleges that Epstein and Maxwell's actions constitute sexual offenses under Article 130 of the Penal Law, and that those actions were committed against Plaintiff when she was 16 years old. Compl. 11 80, 81. Further, Plaintiff filed the Complaint approximately three months after the CVA's revival period began on August 14, 2019, well within the one-year window. Defendants do not contest the CVA's applic