All Defendants Except Finlay Are Dismissed from Alexandra Waterbury's Lawsuit

[Balletwannabe]

Too often, males do not report domestic violence simply because they are male, and can "take it".  These new reports sadden me.  The whole thing is a mess. 

[dirac]

In reading the Finlay filing I was reminded of the incident where the former Mrs. Tiger Woods, Elin Nordegren, upon learning of his multiple infidelities, clawed his face and went after him with a golf club, causing him to exit the house abruptly and crash his SUV. She claimed she had busted the SUV's window with the club in an effort to help her husband, but it didn't look that way to the cops, who wouldn't let her ride in the ambulance with him. Woods did and said the appropriate things to protect his wife. However, it was by all reports uncharacteristic behavior by Nordegren under great stress and an isolated incident. It was wrong, even so, and it's hard not to think that Nordegren took for granted that whatever her husband's problems keeping it in his pants, he would not retaliate in kind when she attacked him or risk hurting her trying to protect himself; he did the only thing he could do if he couldn't calm her down, which was get out of there.

 Male-on-female domestic violence, in comparison, tends to follow a repetitive pattern of seduction and battery designed to control the woman physically and psychologically over time. Female-on-male domestic violence tends to be more driven by impulse or self-defense. If even half of what Finlay alleges is true and reported in context, I would say that Waterbury doesn't fit into either category:  She needs help. If it's true that she lied when she claimed Finlay had been physically abusive when in fact the reverse was the truth, that's........not good.

I will say she gave him at least one piece of sound advice: 

Quote

On or about November 22, 2017, during one of their frequent arguments, Plaintiff texted Mr. Finlay, "if you had true friends they would be there for more than sending naked pictures of girls to each other and doing coke."

Wise words, Alex.

[On Pointe]

19 minutes ago, dirac said:

In reading the Finlay filing I was reminded of the incident where the former Mrs. Tiger Woods, Elin Nordegren, upon learning of his multiple infidelities, clawed his face and went after him with a golf club, causing him to exit the house abruptly and crash his SUV. She claimed she had busted the SUV's window with the club in an effort to help her husband, but it didn't look that way to the cops, who wouldn't let her ride in the ambulance with him. Woods did and said the appropriate things to protect his wife. However, it was by all reports uncharacteristic behavior by Nordegren under great stress and an isolated incident. It was wrong, even so, and it's hard not to think that Nordegren took for granted that whatever her husband's problems keeping it in his pants, he would not retaliate in kind when she attacked him or risk hurting her trying to protect himself; he did the only thing he could do if he couldn't calm her down, which was get out of there.

 Male-on-female domestic violence, in comparison, tends to follow a repetitive pattern of seduction and battery designed to control the woman physically and psychologically over time. Female-on-male domestic violence tends to be more driven by impulse or self-defense. If even half of what Finlay alleges is true and reported in context, I would say that Waterbury doesn't fit into either category:  She needs help. If it's true that she lied when she claimed Finlay had been physically abusive when in fact the reverse was the truth, that's........not good.

I will say she gave him at least one piece of sound advice: 

Wise words, Alex.

A more recent example is the Amber Heard - Johnny Depp debacle.  Heard claimed publicly that Depp had physically abused her,  but admitted privately,  on tape,  that she had attacked him.  It put Depp in a terrible position professionally and the effects linger on,  even after Heard's admission. 

If Waterbury had real friends,  maybe they would have advised her that her relationship with Finlay was too hot to handle for such a young girl.

[Helene]

From her own suit, she thought that his friends were her friends.  Having a relationship with a substance abuser is difficult at any age, but, according to his counterclaim, they were both abusing alcohol, because the other sage advice she gave him was that they needed to stop drinking so much.

If he had real friends, they would have, at minimum, advised him that his relationship with her was dangerous to him, but, as it turns out, their relationship to him was dangerous as well, as they are the ones being outed for drug use or being subject to blackmail in his counterclaims to date.  Plus, they continued on as if there would be no consequences to him having a girlfriend who was able to break into devices.  If she indeed has those skills, she could have made serious money as a consultant while never leaving her couch, as many companies pay people to try to break into their systems as a security measure.

His counterclaim describes behavior on his part that at best is a dysfunctional escalation and, at worst, is deliberately vengeful, since breaking up after what he describes as abhorrent behavior was not in his toolbox.

[Fairandlove]

1 hour ago, Helene said:His counterclaim describes behavior on his part that at best is a dysfunctional escalation and, at worst, is deliberately vengeful, since breaking up after what he describes as abhorrent behavior was not in his toolbox.

Which part are you claiming to be deliberately vengeful?

 If you’re saying that filing counterclaims is vengeful, perhaps you don’t believe in the right to defend oneself from allegations.

 If you’re saying the images shared were somehow vengeful this is also incorrect as the timelines clearly show they were together when it occurred and did not happen afterwards as any type of ‘revenge’.

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, Helene said:

From her own suit, she thought that his friends were her friends. 

I've always thought that Waterbury's vengeful campaign against Ramasar was driven by her discovery that he didn't really see her as a friend or peer,  but more as a kind of groupie.  

 

2 hours ago, Helene said:

Plus, they continued on as if there would be no consequences to him having a girlfriend who was able to break into devices.  If she indeed has those skills, she could have made serious money as a consultant while never leaving her couch, as many companies pay people to try to break into their systems as a security measure.

But she didn't break into his devices.  He foolishly allowed her access to his apartment and computer.  It's likely that Ramasar and Catazaro had no idea about what was going on in their relationship and were blindsided by Waterbury's suit.

Finlay probably did try to break up with Waterbury.  But ending a relationship with an overwrought,  physically abusive partner can be difficult and dangerous,  for men as well as women.  

[Helene]

1 hour ago, Fairandlove said:

If you’re saying that filing counterclaims is vengeful, perhaps you don’t believe in the right to defend oneself from allegations.

Which I'm not.

1 hour ago, Fairandlove said:

If you’re saying the images shared were somehow vengeful this is also incorrect as the timelines clearly show they were together when it occurred and did not happen afterwards as any type of ‘revenge’.

If you add her suit to his counterclaims, it sounds like a lot of their relationship was fraught, and many of their actions could be viewed as escalating and/or retaliatory during their relationship.  People can be quite vengeful before they break up instead of walking when the other person crosses the line.

 

9 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

But she didn't break into his devices.  He foolishly allowed her access to his apartment and computer

He claims differently.  And apparently, he's never heard of a locksmith.

[On Pointe]

According to the counterclaim,  Waterbury got Finlay's password by telling him she needed to file a paper at school.  She already had his keys.  Finlay could be called negligent for giving his keys to an unstable person,  but that's foolishness,  not a crime.

[Helene]

I thought I read a counter that she broke into his devices elsewhere.  Based on the timeline, in the counterclaim, he says he didn't give her permission to go into his computer in May 2018, when she found the messages that triggered the lawsuit: he gave her his password to file a paper in 2017. ("419. Plaintiff never had permission or authority to enter Mr. Finlay's apartment when he was not there or to check his computer for her e-mails outside of his presence, and she did not have such permission or authority on or about May 24, 2018.")

Separately, there was a counterclaim that she made "efforts, furtive or otherwise, to monitor his online communications," in the same sentence as describing violent behavior against him, so, concurrently, but it doesn't claim she hacked him.  But despite all of the escalation/spiraling behavior in the meantime, he didn't change his password.  Or get a restraining order, since, according to the counterclaims, the police were involved in one incident.

Edited to add:  I can understand why he might be reticent to admit to being blackmailed and physically assaulted, because in the kindest reading to him, he was in an abusive relationship he couldn't get out of, something men especially are loathe to admit. But I still don't understand why she would either file a claim or portray herself as a social justice warrior, when there was an audit trail of texts and social media that could be made public easily and which would undermine her to the court and to her followers and supporters.  A one-woman picket line isn't very effective.

[Fairandlove]

2 hours ago, Helene said:

If you add her suit to his counterclaims, it sounds like a lot of their relationship was fraught, and many of their actions could be viewed as escalating and/or retaliatory during their relationship.  People can be quite vengeful before they break up instead of walking when the other person crosses the line.

Totally disagree with this because if you look at her claims, in his text to another person he referred to her as ‘a super hot model’. 
 

Also people do all sorts of things in relationships without meaning to be vengeful ie: sharing secrets with friends or even having an affair.

 
 I just don’t see vengeance in any of it except on her end.

[Helene]

People do all kinds of passive-aggressive things to get back at people they won't/can't stand up to directly, too.

[vagansmom]

10 hours ago, Helene said:

If he had real friends, they would have, at minimum, advised him that his relationship with her was dangerous to him...

We don't know that they didn't do any of this. We don't know what they said or didn't say to Finley beyond the moments with the pictures. I have had a really hard time with the posts about their relationships and the lawsuits because all we really know is what can be proven by text. There's so much more that exists only in the memories of the individuals involved. And memory itself is subject to interference.

 

[Helene]

10 minutes ago, vagansmom said:

We don't know that they didn't do any of this.

And we don't know that her friends didn't tell her to get out of the relationship.  Because it was clearly doing neither of them good, net/net.

 

10 minutes ago, vagansmom said:

all we really know is what can be proven by text.

Or social media.  But only at this point. Memory might be subjective, but depositions are legally binding, and they are key to many cases.

[Fairandlove]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:10 PM, Helene said:

People do all kinds of passive-aggressive things to get back at people they won't/can't stand up to directly, too.

You said: ‘His counterclaim describes behavior on his part that at best is a dysfunctional escalation and, at worst, is deliberately vengeful’

That’s your interpretation, but by no means a binary choice or a definitive conclusion. The answer could also be neither. I personally don’t see his behavior as being either an escalation OR deliberately vengeful. 

[On Pointe]

On 10/23/2020 at 2:13 PM, Helene said:

But I still don't understand why she would either file a claim or portray herself as a social justice warrior, when there was an audit trail of texts and social media that could be made public easily and which would undermine her to the court and to her followers and supporters.  A one-woman picket line isn't very effective.

Waterbury's followers don't care anything about the facts.  Some of those demonstrating in front of WSS had no real idea of what it was that Ramasar supposedly did to her.  They're like the masses of SJW who supported the "mattress girl" at Columbia University.  She even got college credit for her stunt.  The young man she claimed assaulted her was cleared of all charges,  but his education and life on campus were made hell.  (Must be something in the water up there in Morningside Heights.)

Waterbury has garnered a certain modicum of fame and psychic income from her crusade,  and it's likely to linger even when her case against Finlay is over.  I doubt that she'll be awarded much money,  though.  She should have taken the twenty grand and kept it moving.

[Helene]

41 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Waterbury's followers don't care anything about the facts

Waterbury's followers didn't care about fact-checking, like many followers of all kinds.  And  it wasn't necessarily what they thought Ramasar did specifically to her: it was her representation of how he treated women, and what his chat said -- quoted by mainstream media from the suit -- not just Waterbury.

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, Helene said:

Waterbury's followers didn't care about fact-checking, like many followers of all kinds.  And  it wasn't necessarily what they thought Ramasar did specifically to her: it was her representation of how he treated women, and what his chat said -- quoted by mainstream media from the suit -- not just Waterbury.

Okay,  so what did Ramasar say that gave any indication of how he treated women?  AFAIK,  he's known as a considerate,  respectful colleague at NYCB.  He isn't the one who referred to women as "sluts" or "farm animals".   A lot of those kids at WSS follow and post on Broadway message boards,  where the comments are ridiculously over-the-top about Ramasar,  including a hefty dose of racism.  One has to wonder why these youngsters feel entitled to police the thoughts and private communications of adults.

[Fairandlove]

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

 One has to wonder why these youngsters feel entitled to police the thoughts and private communications of adults.

Perhaps the answer is staring us in the face.

[FPF]

The NYT weighs in:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/arts/dance/alexandra-waterbury-chase-finlay-lawsuit.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Arts

[abatt]

 

The New York Appellate Division has issued the attached decision and order in Waterbury's lawsuit.  New York City Ballet is back in the case.  The Court found the allegations against NYCB  are sufficient to state a claim for  negligent hiring and retention of Chase Finlay.  

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=a3guoKQkWOkXUDsHh2Cjew==

It will be interesting to see if NYCB takes an appeal to the  Court of Appeals, based on the dissent's reasoning.  Some very important issues at play here regarding employer liability.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by abatt

[tutu]

1 hour ago, abatt said:

 

The New York Appellate Division has issued the attached decision and order in Waterbury's lawsuit.  New York City Ballet is back in the case.  The Court found the allegations against NYCB  are sufficient to state a claim for  negligent hiring and retention of Chase Finlay.  

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=a3guoKQkWOkXUDsHh2Cjew==

It will be interesting to see if NYCB takes an appeal to the  Court of Appeals, based on the dissent's reasoning.  Some very important issues at play here regarding employer liability.

 

I’d be shocked if the parties can’t reach a mutually agreeable settlement after this ruling.  This a big-deal decision.

[Helene]

I don't read the decision that way.  

Defendant Finlay appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (James Edward D’Auguste, J.), entered on or about September 28, 2020, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the twelfth cause of action, for violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 10-180, as against defendant Chase Finlay, granted the motions as to the sixth and eighth causes of action, for assault, as against defendants Finlay and Amar Ramasar, the fifteenth, sixteenth, and nineteenth causes of action, for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy, as against Finlay, and the second cause of action, for negligent hiring and retention, as against defendant New York City Ballet, Inc. (NYCB); and denied Finlay’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3024(b) to strike scandalous and prejudicial material from the complaint.

Or is that simply the decision that was being reviewed?

Edited to add: to answer my own question, the first time I opened the file, only the first page showed up and the rest were blanks.  Now I can see the arguments and the reversals, plus the dissent.

I never would have expected this.

[abatt]

4 hours ago, tutu said:

I’d be shocked if the parties can’t reach a mutually agreeable settlement after this ruling.  This a big-deal decision.

I'm not so sure NYCB will pony up settlement money to get out of the case.   I'm with Helene on this one.  I would have never expected this result.  

I'm a little surprised this hasn't made the news yet.  This is the kind of publicity NYCB does NOT need.

 

[tutu]

14 hours ago, abatt said:

I'm not so sure NYCB will pony up settlement money to get out of the case.   I'm with Helene on this one.  I would have never expected this result.  

I'm a little surprised this hasn't made the news yet.  This is the kind of publicity NYCB does NOT need.

My thought was that both sides are probably more likely to settle and closer on bid-ask than they were two — make that four — years ago.  On NYCB’s side, they know they’re not necessarily the right/best-funded institution for a test case here, there’s substantial publicity risk, and the follow-on risk associated with getting a Court of Appeals-level decision affirming the Appellate Division (both in what discovery would look like here and what it could mean for other incidents that are more common in ballet than in other industries) could be pretty disastrous.  On plaintiff’s side, she’s probably more resolution-focused and eager to move on with her life than she was four years ago, and counsel doesn’t necessarily want to risk getting this win of a decision smacked down by the Court of Appeals.  

But I’m not a litigator, so my thinking may be totally off here.

Edited April 30, 2022 by tutu

[Kathleen O'Connell]

16 hours ago, abatt said:

It will be interesting to see if NYCB takes an appeal to the  Court of Appeals, based on the dissent's reasoning.  Some very important issues at play here regarding employer liability.

The dissenting Justice, David Friedman, makes this observation in the conclusion to his dissent:

"By no means do I deprecate the serious social problem of digital harassment, which the New York City Council addressed by enacting Administrative Code § 10-180. Section 10-180, however, imposes liability on the perpetrators of digital harassment, not on their employers. In extending liability to such an employer in this case, the majority imposes upon every employer a heretofore unknown duty to monitor the private behavior of its employees, even though that private behavior is not made possible, or even more likely, by the circumstances of the employment and bears only an incidental connection to the employment. I believe that the invention of this new duty will have a deleterious effect upon employers and employees alike."

Justice Friedman appears to be focussing on the specific act of employees sharing images on their private devices and whether an employer can be held responsible for that act simply because the activity took place on its premises.