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-00010066.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal proceeding where a person named Ms. Edelstein is questioned about a potential conflict of interest involving Juror No. 1. The juror shares the same name, Catherine Conrad, as a suspended New York attorney. Ms. Edelstein explains that she dismissed the possibility of them being the same person because the juror stated during voir dire that her highest level of education was a BA in English, which she believed ruled out the possibility of her also being a lawyer.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00010064.jpg

This document is a transcript of legal testimony where a witness, Edelstein, is questioned about a conversation with Theresa Trzaskoma and Susan Brune. Edelstein recounts that Trzaskoma, after receiving a note from Juror No. 1, recalled that there was a suspended New York lawyer with the same name as someone relevant to their case. The witness denies prior knowledge of this information from their firm and clarifies their understanding of the situation at the time.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00010055.jpg

This document is a transcript of a legal deposition from March 24, 2022, involving a witness identified as Brune. The questioning focuses on an email and a Westlaw report concerning a person's identity and status as a suspended attorney from the New York State Office of Court Administration. The witness expresses a belief that there was a case of mistaken identity, where a "Bronxville stay-at-home wife" was confused with a suspended lawyer of the same name.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00010054.jpg

This is a page from a court transcript (redirect examination by Brune). The witness is being questioned about a document containing addresses (Bronx and Bronxville) and lawsuits. The testimony focuses on a specific entry on page 9 of that document, which lists Robert J. Conrad as a 'spouse' under 'Additional Individuals' rather than 'Head of Household.' The questioning also references email traffic from May 12th involving Ms. Trzaskoma identifying Conrad.

Court transcript / deposition
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00010040.jpg

This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a lawyer, Ms. Brune, regarding her firm's knowledge of potential juror misconduct. Ms. Brune asserts that the legal standard requires 'actual knowledge' of misconduct, which she claims her firm did not possess, though she admits they erroneously believed no misconduct occurred. The questioning also references a July 22nd telephone call where Ms. Brune apparently acknowledged her client, defendant Parse, was in a different situation compared to other defendants.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00010003.jpg

This document is a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The questioning focuses on her and her team's failure to conduct prior research on a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, whose name was identical to one found in a New York court opinion. Ms. Brune admits that she did not ask her team of nearly two dozen people to perform this additional research before the voir dire process.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009948.jpg

This document is a condensed transcript (pages 221-224) from the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. It features the testimony of Ms. Conrad, a suspended New York attorney who served as a juror in a complex tax shelter fraud case presided over by Judge Pauley. The questioning revolves around her motives for serving on the jury while suspended, specifically whether she used the service to demonstrate stability for her bar reinstatement petition, which she denies.

Court transcript (condensed)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009912.jpg

This document is an index of exhibits (13 through 23) from a 'Trzaskoma Declaration' filed in a legal case. The exhibits consist of various legal and criminal records, including court dispositions, police records, and filings related to individuals named Catherine Conrad, Catherine Rosa, and Frank Rosa. Several exhibits pertain to the civil case 'Conrad v. Manessis' in Bronx County, New York, with filings dated between 2003 and 2009.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009911.jpg

This document is a table of contents for exhibits attached to a 'Trzaskoma Declaration' in a legal case. The exhibits primarily concern an individual named Catherine Conrad (also referred to as Catherine M. Conrad and Catherine Morgan Conrad) and include various legal and personal documents. These documents range from a 1998 criminal court disposition to a 2007 marriage certificate and a 2011 letter, suggesting a compilation of background information for a legal proceeding.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009861.jpg

This document is a news article detailing the perspective of a juror, 'Scotty,' from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Scotty explains that the defense team's aggressive tactics, particularly attorney Laura Menninger's questioning of a victim, backfired and helped convince the jury of the defense's lack of respect for the victims. The article also contains a sidebar about a separate, 'brutal' court hearing for Prince Andrew in New York concerning a lawsuit filed by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

News article
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009858.jpg

This document is a news article, filed as part of a legal case, detailing an interview with 'Scotty David,' a juror from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The juror describes his observations of Maxwell's demeanor in court, the jury's deliberations, and reveals that he is a victim of child sex abuse, an experience he shared with other jurors. This disclosure, if not previously revealed on his juror questionnaire, could provide grounds for Maxwell to claim a mistrial, according to legal expert Moira Penza.

News article / legal filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009774.jpg

This document is a page from a juror questionnaire (Juror ID 50) filed on March 24, 2022, for case 20-cr-00330-ABN. The juror responds to a series of questions about their personal relationships with key case participants. The juror explicitly denies having any personal knowledge of or dealings with defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, or any of the named prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

Juror questionnaire
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009675.jpg

This document is page 14 of a filed court document (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 9, 2022. It contains a portion of a questionnaire filled out by Juror ID 50. The juror answers 'No' to having any association with the NYPD and 'No' to having any opinion of U.S. Attorneys Damian Williams or Audrey Strauss that would affect their impartiality.

Court document / juror questionnaire
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009612.jpg

This legal document excerpt details the conviction of 'the defendant' on multiple counts related to sex trafficking and exploitation. It outlines evidence showing the defendant's involvement in transporting and abusing Jane with Epstein, arranging sex acts for Carolyn with Epstein for money, and recruiting Virginia, all while they were minors. The document emphasizes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict despite defense arguments regarding victim credibility.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009611.jpg

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the sufficiency of evidence to uphold a defendant's conviction on multiple counts. It details the defendant's role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, specifically by making travel arrangements for a victim named Jane and recruiting another victim, Virginia. The document cites trial testimony and legal precedents to assert that a rational jury could and did find the defendant guilty.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009610.jpg

This document is page 48 of a court filing (Document 621) from February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Government argues that the Court should deny Maxwell's Rule 29 motion for acquittal, specifically addressing Count One (conspiracy). The text references testimony from a victim named 'Jane' who stated she was abused by both Epstein and Maxwell in New York and was groomed through methods including 'field trips.'

Court filing (government memorandum of law)
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009605.jpg

This document, a legal filing from February 25, 2022, discusses the defendant's arguments regarding the availability and completeness of phone records and flight manifests in a criminal case. The defendant claims that Carolyn's testimony could have been disproven by phone records and that flight manifests would have helped challenge Jane's recollections, but the document refutes these claims, citing testimony from Visoski and Rodgers about the handling and incompleteness of flight manifests.

Legal document / court filing
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009600.jpg

This legal document is a court filing in which the defendant argues for the case to be dismissed due to substantial prejudice caused by pre-indictment delay. The defendant claims the deaths of several witnesses, including architects, a property manager, and a housekeeper who worked for Epstein, as well as others like Jeffrey Epstein himself, prevent a fair trial. The document indicates the Court has previously rejected these arguments as speculative and lacking evidence of actual prejudice.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009595.jpg

This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) argues against a claim of multiplicity by distinguishing between two separate conspiracies involving the defendant. It details a 1990s scheme focused on grooming and mentoring victims for abuse at Epstein's properties, and a separate 2000s 'pyramid scheme' where victims were paid to recruit others for massage appointments.

Court filing / legal opinion
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009594.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, analyzes the overlap in time and geographic scope between two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five. It argues that the overlap is minimal, with Count Three primarily covering conduct in the 1990s involving transporting minors from Florida to New York, while Count Five covers a sex trafficking conspiracy in the 2000s. The document references an overt act involving efforts by a defendant and Epstein to solicit a person named Carolyn to travel, and mentions that someone named Kellen took nude photographs of Carolyn for Epstein.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009591.jpg

This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, argues that two criminal charges, Count Three and Count Five, are substantially different and not redundant. It distinguishes them based on different underlying statutes (including the Mann Act and Trafficking Victims Protection Act), differing ages of consent (17 in New York vs. 18), geographic locations (New York vs. Florida), and the specific victims involved, including Jane, Annie Farmer, and Virginia Roberts. The document cites flight records and testimony from pilot David Rodgers as evidence of Virginia Roberts traveling with the defendant and Epstein at age 17.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009587.jpg

This document is page 25 of a legal filing (Document 621) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. The Government argues that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three (Mann Act conspiracy) and Count Five (Sex Trafficking conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act), asserting they are distinct criminal schemes and not multiplicitous. It also addresses procedural arguments regarding jury instructions related to a witness/victim referred to as 'Jane'.

Legal filing / court motion
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009584.jpg

This legal document, page 22 of a court filing from February 25, 2022, presents the prosecution's argument against the defendant's claim of a constructive amendment to their indictment. The prosecution asserts that the S2 Indictment for Mann Act offenses was consistent with the evidence presented and jury instructions, citing the D'Amelio case. A footnote further argues that even if one count was flawed, based on jury notes concerning Annie Farmer's testimony about abuse in New Mexico, it would not invalidate the other conspiracy counts, citing the Pfaff and Milstein cases.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009581.jpg

This legal document presents the defendant's speculation on a jury's split verdict, arguing that the conviction was based on a trip to New Mexico. The defense contends the jury acquitted on an enticement charge because flight logs, while placing the defendant on the trip, offered no proof she induced the victim, 'Jane', to go. The document contrasts this with a trip to New York, where Jane's testimony was corroborated by a flight record, and discusses the lack of evidence regarding the defendant's involvement in Jane's return travel from New Mexico.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00009580.jpg

This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 621) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 25, 2022. The text is a legal argument refuting the defense's interpretation of a jury note regarding accomplice liability and flight arrangements. It specifically addresses the victim 'Jane', debating whether Maxwell arranged her return flight from New Mexico and discussing corroborating evidence in flight logs versus commercial flight records.

Court filing (legal brief/response)
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