Dessus et dessous

I agree. But I did not reference taking images. I referenced unlawful disclosure. (https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-york/ny-laws/ny_new_york_city_administrative_code_10-177-3. "Unlawful disclosure." A misdemeanor, intent required.) And I agree with the upthread, Findlay might be liable under both that and "Stephanie's Law." (https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-250-45.html. "Unlawful surveillance." A felony, no intent.) (Though for now, of the two, the Complaint alleges only unlawful disclosure. [Amended Complaint, pp. 46–7; para. 214.]) Fair enough: He allegedly owes or paid somebody part of $150,000. (Amended Complaint, para. 45.)

I do too. I know what I'd suggest. I'd say settle. Finlay can't afford to drag this out. He's unemployed. He owes NYCB some part of $150,000. Rehab cost something. His lawyer's probably billing by the hour. His ballet clock is ticking, and he needs to leave town to find work. Plus, Merson has leverage: a criminal complaint under 10-177 (unlawful disclosure of intimate images). If he files, Finlay risks up to a year in jail and/or a misdemeanor conviction, which'll "get stapled to every job application he ever submits." He's not defenseless. 10-177 requires "intent to harm." He can argue he didn't. Or try to get the photos thrown out. But that fight is his worst option. What Merson really wants is City Ballet. Get out of his way.

Good point, FPF. I should specify. The interim team has also demonstrated the power to fine, suspend and fire. Are these the authorities Bouder thinks languished while this behavior festered?

"... this behavior ... was allowed to fester in our currently leaderless state." Reprinting this unquestioned seems like journalism lite. Bouder has access. Does she have actual information that someone at City Ballet knew about this photo club and failed to act appropriately? Or not? Shouldn't there have been follow-up questions about the basis of her comment, with her response included? And, City Ballet is not "leaderless." It has an interim leadership team. Under it, the Company has set up "an anonymous complaint system and annual performance evaluations with every dancer; [offers] more counseling for mental health, substance abuse, performance anxiety and nutrition; and [made] weight discussions more sensitive and discreet." All significant, positive and absent from the previous, "leadered" Martins regime. If Bouder feels leadership is deficient in other ways, that's one thing. To blame it for letting this behavior "fester" is a step further. The comment is either significant or irresponsible.

Fair point. Wonder what Merson asked for that ruled out settling before the suit was filed. There's this from a 9/16/18 WSJ article: "... unlike some other prominent nonprofit cultural institutions in the city, the ballet has a solid financial track record of late. It has balanced its budget in the last six seasons and is sitting on a $225 million endowment. It has also raised $65 million of a $70 million capital campaign goal. The company expressed confidence that it won’t be affected financially by the news of recent weeks." (I'm happy the Company's finances are in good shape.) "Won't be affected" seems over-confident, but I guess not settling seemed the better option. Random unrelated musings (insert "alleged" and "on or about" at will): --If the Company knew of Finlay's "alcohol and substance abuse," did Waterbury? Did that concern her moving in with him? --So Finlay left for the airport at 4 a.m. on May 15, did some job somewhere, and danced Afternoon of a Faun that night in New York? (http://dancetabs.com/2018/05/new-york-city-ballet-all-robbins-no-4-bill-new-york/) --How will the Company get Finlay's share of its $150,000 with him jobless? Ditto Catazaro's, if he was among the fined?

Thanks Drew for the AGMA links. I'm glad AGMA made a statement and a change. For a long time a long time ago, AGMA gave the back of its hand to ballet. I hope AGMA finds a way to extend itself to help non-union and non-AGMA union dancers report. I've long thought ballet needed to improve its rule-making, training and handling of harassment. That said, I share some of the concerns expressed in various posts about the including City Ballet and SAB in the complaint. With all due respect, it's already in court. This does not go away for City Ballet unless a judge says so. I worry what a jury thinks. And reading Merson's website, if anyone can get the City Ballet part of this past a judge, it might be him.

Hi all and thanks for your posts! Lots of heads being put together. And thanks for posting the statement read last night. I'm glad to hear from dancers. On opening night, the audience applauded the pre-performance announcement. As did I. Speaking for myself, I was expressing my support for the dancers not involved in the alleged misbehavior and the institution that has given me such joy for so long. Recent posts have discussed supervision at SAB and "snooping." 1.) Supervision Since SAB opened regular dormitories, supervision has become more formalized (it once consisted of Violette Verdy's mother, and although she was strict, that was different). But as regards the suit, SAB's supervisory policies may not be an issue. Arguing that the School had a "duty of care" to Ms. Waterbury years after she left will be a stretch. ("Duty of care" means a legally recognized relationship that required SAB to protect her. [https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html]) This particular question will be up to a judge to decide before trial (likely in response to some motion [e.g., to dismiss or for summary judgment]). The standard used will be what a "reasonable person" would accept. In theory, the judge will accept the allegations in the complaint as true and give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff. (https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html; http://www.thelangelfirm.com/Debt-Defense-Blog/2016/April/Legal-Grounds-for-a-Motion-to-Dismiss-New-York.aspx Page 2; https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/6jd/forms/SRForms/m_howto.pdf, pp. 5–6.) The causes of action against SAB and NYCB involving negligence must clear this hurdle to proceed. 2.) "Snooping" If I understand right, the issue here is that some of Ms. Waterbury's harm resulted from her own "snooping." That is not a legal show-stopper. New York law recognizes negligence claims in which the victim shares responsibility for his/her harm. But It reduces the jury award by that percentage. (https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-negligence-laws.html)