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-00009179.jpg

This document details a potential mistrial claim for Ghislaine Maxwell based on revelations from juror Scotty David, who was a victim of child sex abuse and shared his experience with fellow jurors. Legal experts discuss the implications of David's disclosure and the possibility of Maxwell's convictions being quashed if proper disclosure protocols were not followed during jury selection.

News article/report
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009175.jpg

This document is a court exhibit (Document 615-3, filed 02/24/22) consisting of a printout of a Daily Mail article published on January 5, 2022. The article features an exclusive interview with Scotty David, a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, who discusses the jury's deliberations, his perception of Maxwell as a 'predator' as guilty as Epstein, and how his own experience with sexual abuse helped the jury understand the nature of traumatic memory.

News article / court exhibit
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009040.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of Ms. Maxwell's defense, arguing against the reliability of her accusers' memories. It highlights similarities between the claims of accusers (Jane, Carolyn, Kate, Annie Farmer) and those of Juror No. 50, who also claims to be a victim of abuse. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's assertion that his memory can be 'replayed like a video,' directly contradicting the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus, who stated that memory is a constructive process, thereby questioning the validity of such memory claims and suggesting potential juror bias.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008980.jpg

This document is the cover page for a Memorandum of Law filed on February 24, 2022, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It was filed by attorney Todd Spodek on behalf of 'Juror 50', who is seeking to intervene in the case to release a sealed jury questionnaire and transcript.

Legal filing (memorandum of law)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008969.jpg

This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 604) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 17, 2022. The filing party, NACDL, argues for the importance of its perspective in the case, citing legal precedents like Skilling v. United States regarding jury selection and other cases concerning the role of amicus curiae (friends of the court). The document aims to persuade the court to consider its suggestions on ensuring juror honesty and establishing a fair framework for the proceedings.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008957.jpg

This legal document argues that the defense was hindered by the unavailability of contemporaneous phone and property records for Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and accusers. It cites two examples: the inability to challenge Carolyn's testimony that Maxwell called her to set up appointments, and the inability to rebut accuser Jane's testimony about the timing of her sexual abuse at Epstein's New York townhouse, which she described in detail.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008956.jpg

This legal document outlines the defense's argument that it was hindered by the unavailability of old records. Specifically, incomplete travel records from Shoppers Travel prevented them from challenging the testimony of witnesses Annie Farmer and Jane regarding their travel with Epstein. Furthermore, the lack of bank and credit card records from the 1990s and 2000s meant the defense could not contest the government's claims about a $30 million payment from Epstein to Ms. Maxwell or verify other key dates.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008955.jpg

This legal document discusses the significance of flight records in a trial, arguing that contemporaneous passenger manifests and travel records were crucial for verifying accusers' timelines. It highlights the inadequacy of the flight logs kept by David Rodgers, which were incomplete and used generic identifiers. The document also references testimony from Cimberly Espinosa and Annie Farmer regarding travel arrangements made by Epstein, including flights for accuser 'Jane' when she was 16 and a trip for Annie Farmer to New Mexico.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008952.jpg

This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 600) in the case US v. Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022. It outlines the government's theory that Epstein and Maxwell operated a single criminal conspiracy using a specific 'playbook' to groom vulnerable minors across multiple locations (NY, Palm Beach, NM, USVI). The text cites trial transcripts regarding four specific accusers (Jane, Annie, Carolyn, Kate) and describes the targeting of children from single-mother households.

Legal filing / court motion (page 28 of 37)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008945.jpg

This legal document is a motion arguing for the convictions of Ms. Maxwell on Counts One, Three, and Four to be vacated. The defense contends that the jury was improperly influenced by evidence of conduct in New Mexico involving a person named 'Jane', which was not part of the original indictment. This created a 'constructive amendment' or a prejudicial 'variance' between the indictment and the proof at trial, warranting a new trial on these counts.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008943.jpg

This legal document analyzes a jury's deliberation, focusing on how flight logs kept by Epstein's pilot, Dave Rodgers, were used to corroborate testimony from a victim named Jane. The jury appears to have found no corroborating evidence for Ms. Maxwell's involvement in Jane's trips to New York, but did find evidence in the flight logs that Maxwell was a passenger on a trip with Jane to New Mexico. This distinction led the jury to focus its evaluation on Ms. Maxwell's involvement in the conduct that occurred in New Mexico.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008942.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell's conviction on Count Four was likely improper. The argument centers on a note from the jury, which suggests they based the conviction on sexual abuse that victim 'Jane' experienced in New Mexico, facilitated by Maxwell. However, the charge required the intended sexual activity to be a violation of New York Penal Law, a condition the New Mexico events did not satisfy.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008940.jpg

This legal document argues that there is a substantial likelihood that Ms. Maxwell was improperly convicted on Mann Act counts. The defense contends the conviction may have been based on testimony about conduct in New Mexico, which does not violate New York law, thereby constituting a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment that broadened the charges beyond what was originally presented by the government.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008938.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, distinguishes between a 'constructive amendment' and a 'variance' in a criminal indictment, citing several legal precedents. It argues that the central element, or 'core of criminality,' of the Mann Act charges against Epstein and Ms. Maxwell was a clear scheme to entice underage girls to travel to New York for the purpose of violating New York law.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008936.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, details the defense's request for an additional jury instruction concerning Mann Act counts, arguing against conviction based solely on New Mexico conduct. The Court declined this instruction, and the jury subsequently convicted Ms. Maxwell on Count Four, with charges also in Counts One and Three. The document also cites applicable law regarding constructive amendments, defining them and explaining their impact on a defendant's Grand Jury Clause rights.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008935.jpg

This legal document from a court case, filed on February 11, 2022, details arguments over jury instructions concerning whether an offense must be a violation of New York law, even if events occurred in New Mexico. It highlights a specific note from the deliberating jury asking for clarification on Count Four, questioning if defendant Ms. Maxwell could be convicted for aiding a victim's (Jane's) return flight if the criminal intent was tied to the initial flight to New Mexico. The court declined to provide clarifying instructions, referring the jury back to the original charge.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008932.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 11, 2022, discusses the background facts regarding jury instructions for Mann Act counts in a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell. It establishes that a conviction required proving an intent to violate a specific New York law (Penal Law § 130.55) and includes a court transcript clarifying this point, particularly in relation to the testimony of a witness named Kate.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008931.jpg

This legal document is a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell to vacate her convictions and grant a new trial. The argument is that the jury improperly convicted her on charges based on testimony about events in New Mexico, which was outside the scope of the original indictment premised on violations of New York law. The filing contends this constituted a 'constructive amendment' of the indictment, making the conviction invalid.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008930.jpg

This legal document is an Omnibus Memorandum filed on February 11, 2022, by Ghislaine Maxwell in support of her post-trial motions. The defense argues that her convictions on the Mann Act counts should be vacated due to a constructive amendment from the original indictment, asserting the government failed to properly prove a violation of New York law as required. The motion also seeks alternative relief, including a new trial, judgment on only one conspiracy count, or a complete dismissal of the indictment.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008926.jpg

This document is the Table of Contents (page 'i') for a legal filing (Document 600) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 11, 2022. The filing outlines arguments to vacate Maxwell's convictions on Mann Act counts due to variances from the indictment, consolidate conspiracy counts because they are multiplicitous, and dismiss the indictment due to pre-indictment delay. It references specific evidence types including flight records, passenger manifests, and financial documents.

Legal filing (table of contents)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00008919.jpg

This legal document, dated February 9, 2022, from Winston & Strawn LLP, describes the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and its practice of filing amicus curiae briefs. It cites legal precedents for amicus participation and requests the Court's permission to file an amicus brief regarding a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The document notes that Counsel for the Defendant has consented, while Counsel for the DOJ has not yet responded to inquiries.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00031536.jpg

This document is a printout of a webpage from New York Social Diary, dated April 20, 2004. It features photographs of various individuals at a social event, most notably showing known Jeffrey Epstein associates Nadia Marcinkova, Sarah Kellen, and Teela Davies posing together in one photograph. The document was processed as part of a DOJ Public Records Request.

Webpage printout / public record (doj foia)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00031535.jpg

This document is an entry from 'David Patrick Columbia's New York Social Diary' dated April 20, 2004. The author recounts a dinner at the New York restaurant Swifty's, noting the presence of Lee Radziwill, as well as Jim Kaufman dining with Laura Codman. The entry focuses on Laura Codman's lineage, as she is a descendant of the influential 20th-century interior designer Ogden Codman, and muses on his legacy and collaboration with Edith Wharton.

Social diary/blog post
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00031524.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing (likely an indictment or information) dated via fax header April 4, 2006, and released via FOIA in 2017. It details a 'Scheme and Artifice to Defraud' involving a redacted defendant working as a mortgage broker at Mortgage Express in Palm Beach Gardens. The text outlines how the defendant allegedly submitted false information to obtain mortgage financing and commissions from various banks, including Bank of America, Republic Consumer Lending Group, and Ohio Savings Bank.

Legal filing (indictment or information)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00031486.jpg

This document is a defense transcript from October 11, 2005, where a witness is being questioned by detectives. The witness discusses past unemployment, lying to a person named Will, spending all their money, and being in New York on New Year's on 'his dime', referring to an unnamed individual who owns an island in the Caribbean and uses a private plane.

Defense transcript
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