New York

Location
Mentions
6508
Relationships
2
Events
0
Documents
2987
Also known as:
New York-New York Hotel & Casino New York-New York Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, San Francisco, Tulsa New York New York New York City New York, NY 620 Eighth Ave., New York, NY 10018 New York City, NY 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, New York 10022 345 Park Avenue, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10154 345 Park Avenue, NYC 20-2606, New York, NY 10154-0004 320 EAST 82 ST | NEW YORK | NY State of New York West Village, New York Coney Island, New York SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK New York Stock Exchange (subject of artwork) New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange, New York Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), New York New York, N.Y. Armonk, New York New York, New York One Hogan Place, New York, New York 10013 New York County, New York 85 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004 240 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019 511 6th Ave, New York NY 10011 New York City (N.Y.C.) 1 Central Park West #32F, New York, NY 10023 950 5th Avenue, New York, New York 10021 1260 Ave. of the Americas, New York 125 West 18th St., New York Pier 59, at Chelsea Piers, New York 475 10th Ave., New York 11 West 42nd Street, New York New York University New York Office 18 West 10th St, New York, NY 900 Park Ave, New York, NY 40 East 62nd St, New York 10021 New York (NY) 655 Park Avenue, New York NY 10021 142 W 57th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10019 Metropolitan Pavilion, 125 West 18th St., New York 336 East 69th Street, New York, NY 10021 21 East 70th St., New York 10021 208 E. 90th Street, New York, NY 10128 9 East 68th St., New York, New York 10022 130 West 56th Street, New York, New York 10019 1 Beekman Place, New York, NY 10022 Upper East Side, New York Town Hall, New York 575 Lexington Avenue 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 New York mansion 575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 40 Wall (New York) New York State 60 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10012 142 Greene St. #5, New York, NY 10012 10 Lincoln Center Plaza, New York Grand Hyatt New York, Park Ave. at Grand Central Terminal, New York 365 Fifth Ave., New York Yonkers, New York 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Ossining, New York New York (N.Y.) New York (implied by area code 212 and NYT affiliation) Eastern District of New York Fifth Avenue (New York) New York office New York Stock Exchange (subject of photo) 153 E 53 St. 18th Fl., New York, New York 10022 110 E 59 St, Floor 28, New York, New York 10022 110 East End Ave., New York, NY 10021 332 E. 84th St, #1G, New York, NY 10028 570 Park Avenue # 2B, New York, NY 10021 N.Y.C (New York City) NY (New York) 60 Greene Street, New York 333 West 23rd St., New York (SVA Theatre) 655 West 34th St., New York (Javits Center) New York Public Library 462 7th Ave 2nd Fl, New York, NY 10018 Southern District of New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 450 Park Avenue, New York Joyce Theater, 175 Eighth Ave., New York The Pierre Hotel, 2 East 61st St., New York Gotham Hall, 1356 Broadway, New York 85 Broad Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10004 246 Spring St., New York 324 E. 57th, New York, 10022 New York Museum of Modern Art 767 5th Avenue 46th fl., New York, NY 10153 813 Park Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10021 42 E. 58th Street, New York Liberty, New York 575 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 315 East 14th Street, New York 172 Norfolk St., New York 950 3rd Ave, New York, NY 1 East 66th St, New York, NY 10021 8 Spruce Street (New York) New York (Broadcast studio location) 810 Seventh Ave., Suite 620, New York, NY 10019 New York Presbyterian Hospital Foley Square, New York (Implied) New York property New York Southern (UNYS) Latham, New York New York Field Office NYM (New York) New York (implied by NYPD/FBI NY context) New York (implied by N. (NY) and NYPD) Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), New York (implied) New York, NY 10022-6843 New York Office (NYO) MCC (Metropolitan Correctional Center, New York) 40 Foley, New York New York, NY (implied by office names) 9 East 67th Street, New York New York (implied by 'NY' in case number) New York (implied by Field Office) MCC New York (implied by BOP and context of Epstein case) FBI New York Office New York Presbyterian/Cornell Medical Center 299 Park Avenue, New York NY 10171-0002 New York (Epstein Residence) New York (Grand Jury location) New York Co. SDNY Office (1 St. Andrew’s Plaza, New York, NY) New York, NY 10001 9 E 71st St, New York, NY MCC (New York) 500 Pearl St, New York, NY 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 66 John Street, New York, NY One Penn Plaza, Suite 4715, New York, NY 10119 301 E. 66th Street, New York, NY 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10002 919 Third Ave, New York, NY 10022 New York, NY 10278 MCC New York (Implied) 55 Hudson Yards, New York, NY New York (implied by 'your fair city' and NYPD context) New York, NY (1 St. Andrew's Plaza) New York, NY 10003 New York Headquarters 10 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10020 Shore Haven (New York) 521 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10175 467 10th Ave, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 230 FIFTH, 230 Fifth Ave., New York OCME, 421 E. 26th St, New York, NY

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
2 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person CAROLYN
Origin
1
1
View
person Maria
Resident
1
1
View
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00021064.jpg

This document is a 'Statement of the Issues Presented for Review' from an appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023). It outlines four main legal arguments for appeal: the misapplication of a non-prosecution agreement, errors regarding statutes of limitations, juror misconduct involving concealed history of sexual abuse, and a constructive amendment of the indictment regarding venue (New Mexico vs. New York) and state law.

Legal brief / appellate court filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021062.jpg

This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It appears to be a Table of Authorities, listing various legal statutes, congressional reports, and a news article from the Independent newspaper concerning a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021057.jpg

This document is page 'ix' from a legal filing, specifically Document 59 in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous U.S. court cases with their legal citations and corresponding page references within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1926 to 2017 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021051.jpg

This document is a table of contents from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, related to Case 22-1426. It outlines the arguments for an appeal on behalf of 'Maxwell', alleging multiple errors by the District Court, including the handling of 'Juror 50' in a post-trial hearing, constructively amending the indictment, and applying an incorrect sentencing guideline. The filing seeks to have the sentence vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021025.jpg

This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against a defendant's claim of prejudice due to the death of potential witnesses. The prosecution contends that the defendant's assertions about what these witnesses (architects and a housekeeper) would have testified are speculative and unsubstantiated. It further argues that other witnesses, such as Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, were available and did testify about similar matters, like renovations at Epstein's residences, meaning the information was obtainable through other means.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021024.jpg

This document is page 41 of a court ruling (likely denying a motion to dismiss) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text discusses the legal standard for 'pre-indictment delay' and 'lost evidence,' specifically refuting the Defendant's claims that lost government property records and flight manifests (delivered by pilot Larry Visoski to Epstein's NY office) prejudiced her defense. The court argues the Defendant failed to prove these records were unavailable through other means or that their absence was caused by the government's delay.

Court filing / legal opinion (page 41 of 45)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021023.jpg

This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's claim that missing evidence—such as financial records, phone records, and flight manifests—was prejudicial to her case. The court rejects this argument, stating the defendant failed to demonstrate what the absent documents would have shown or how they would have been beneficial, concluding the claims are purely speculative. The court notes that the missing evidence could just as easily have further substantiated the government's case.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021022.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 657 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) addressing the Defendant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) claim that delay in prosecution caused prejudice to her defense. The text argues the defendant failed to prove substantial prejudice but outlines her specific claims regarding lost evidence, including flight records, financial documents, phone records, and property records. It specifically names deceased witnesses the defense claims were unavailable: architects Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, and property manager Sally Markham.

Legal filing (court opinion/order)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021017.jpg

This legal document page details the court's reasoning for rejecting the Defendant's proposed jury instructions. The court argues that it correctly instructed the jury on the sole predicate offense under New York Penal Law, avoiding confusion that the Defendant's proposals regarding other jurisdictions' laws and specific witness testimonies (from Kate, Annie, and Jane) would have created. The document concludes that the Defendant's claim of potential jury error, specifically regarding conduct in New Mexico versus New York, is speculative and implausible.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021016.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing (likely a Government brief or Court Opinion) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's requests regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'travel to New York' and the age of consent laws in New Mexico, the UK, and Florida. The text argues that the Court's instructions were legally sound and that the Defendant's proposals would have confused the jury.

Legal brief / court filing (appellate appendix)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021015.jpg

This legal document is a page from a court filing arguing against the defendant's (Maxwell's) appeal regarding jury instructions. The filing asserts that the trial court correctly rejected the defendant's proposed instruction because it was unresponsive, redundant, and legally inaccurate. The core issue revolves around whether sexual activity outside of New York could form the basis for a conviction, with the filing arguing that the existing jury charge sufficiently clarified that the violation had to be under New York Penal Law.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021013.jpg

This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) discusses a dispute over a jury note regarding 'Count Four.' The argument centers on whether the jury could convict based solely on conduct in New Mexico versus the required New York law violation. The text details a debate over the placement of a comma in the jury's note and the Court's subsequent instruction to the jury to focus on New York law.

Court filing / legal brief (appeal/post-trial motion)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021012.jpg

This document is a page from a legal ruling (likely denying a new trial) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a jury note asking for clarification on 'Count Four' regarding whether aiding a victim's ('Jane') return flight constitutes guilt if the defendant did not aid the initial flight to New Mexico for sexual activity. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the jury instruction was unclear or that it constructively amended the indictment, noting that Jane testified about numerous flights on both Epstein's private plane and commercial airlines.

Legal filing (court order/opinion)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021010.jpg

This document is a legal filing (likely an appellate brief response) from April 2022 summarizing testimony from a victim identified as 'Jane' regarding the criminal conduct of Ghislaine Maxwell ('the Defendant') and Jeffrey Epstein. It details how Jane met the pair at a summer camp, was groomed, and transported via private and commercial flights to properties in Florida, New York, and New Mexico for sexual activity starting when she was 14. The text highlights Maxwell's role in arranging travel and participating in the scheme to transport underage girls across state lines for illegal sexual acts.

Court filing / legal brief (appellate or post-trial response)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021009.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses limiting instructions given to a jury. The instructions clarified that the testimony of two witnesses, Kate and Annie, could not be the sole basis for conviction on certain counts because their experiences either involved someone not legally a victim under the specific charges (Kate) or occurred in a different jurisdiction (Annie in New Mexico). The court aimed to focus the jury's attention on the specific alleged crime: the transport of a minor, Jane, to New York for sexual activity illegal under New York law.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021008.jpg

This legal document, filed on April 29, 2022, discusses the jury instructions given in a criminal trial. It details how the Court instructed the jury that the Defendant's charges under the Mann Act were predicated on specific violations of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with a person under seventeen. The document confirms the Court clarified this point and specified overt acts from the indictment, including one from 1996, to guide the jury's deliberations.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021007.jpg

This document is page 24 of a court ruling (filed April 29, 2022) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (referred to as the Defendant). It addresses a defense motion regarding a 'constructive amendment,' specifically discussing whether the jury improperly convicted the Defendant based on intent for sexual activity in New Mexico (involving a victim named 'Jane') rather than New York, as charged in the indictment involving a scheme with Jeffrey Epstein.

Court order / legal opinion (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021004.jpg

This legal document is a court filing that denies a defendant's motions for acquittal and to vacate convictions related to the Mann Act. The court found sufficient evidence from witness testimonies (including from 'Carolyn', 'Annie', and 'Kate') to conclude that the defendant conspired with Epstein to transport minors to locations like New York, New Mexico, and the Caribbean for illegal sexual activity. The defendant's actions, such as paying for sexualized massages and inviting girls to travel, were considered part of this conspiracy, justifying the jury's conviction.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021003.jpg

This legal document, a page from a court filing dated April 29, 2022, outlines the court's conclusion that trial evidence supported a guilty verdict for the Defendant on Count Three, conspiracy to transport minors for illegal sexual activity. The document summarizes testimony from victims 'Jane' and 'Annie,' who described being groomed and taken on trips to New York and New Mexico by the Defendant and co-conspirator Epstein. The court found this and other evidence sufficient to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021001.jpg

This legal document is a court's conclusion that sufficient evidence exists for a jury to find the Defendant guilty on counts of transporting a minor and sex trafficking. The conclusion is based on the testimony of a victim, "Jane," who stated the Defendant facilitated her travel with Jeffrey Epstein from Palm Beach to New York, assisted her in boarding flights, and was present during Epstein's sexual abuse of her when she was a minor.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00021000.jpg

This legal document is a court opinion from case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on April 29, 2022. The Court is addressing a post-trial Rule 29 motion for acquittal filed by the defendant, Maxwell. The Court denies the motion for the remaining counts (Three, Four, and Six), after noting the jury acquitted on Count Two and the Court deemed Counts One and Five multiplicitous. The document specifically begins to analyze Count Four, which involves the transportation of a minor named Jane for sexual activity in violation of New York law between 1994 and 1997.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020997.jpg

This document is a page from a legal ruling (likely the Maxwell case, 1:20-cr-00330) discussing legal arguments regarding conspiracy counts, overt acts, and the interdependence of crimes. It analyzes whether the abuse of specific victims (Carolyn, Jane, Annie) constituted one common conspiracy or distinct conspiracies involving the Defendant and Epstein. The text references legal precedents and the timing of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act enactment in 2000.

Legal opinion / court order (excerpt from case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020996.jpg

This legal document details how the Defendant and Epstein used financial gifts and payments as a grooming tactic to gain victims' trust and facilitate sexual abuse. It cites testimony from a victim named 'Jane' about receiving money and payments for lessons, and mentions promises made to another victim, 'Annie'. The document also discusses the geographic scope of the conspiracy, noting that sexual conduct occurred not only in New York and Florida but also in New Mexico and London, involving other victims like Carolyn and Virginia Roberts.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020990.jpg

This legal document analyzes two counts from an indictment against an unnamed Defendant. Count Three alleges a conspiracy from 1994-2004 to transport minors across state lines for sexual activity, based on testimony from victims Jane, Carolyn, and Annie Farmer. Count Five alleges a conspiracy from 2001-2004 for trafficking individuals for commercial sex acts, based on evidence related to Carolyn and Virginia Roberts. The Defendant argues, and the Court appears to agree, that Count Five is a subset of Count Three.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00020889.jpg

This Reuters news article reports on the perspectives of jurors from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Juror Scotty David describes how another juror, Carolyn, was influenced by a fellow juror's story of growing up in a similar socioeconomic background, leading her to believe girls in her neighborhood could have been victimized by people like Epstein and Maxwell. David also states his own conviction that Maxwell was complicit and not merely a scapegoat for Epstein.

News article
2025-11-20
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity