Victim Of Lawyer's Sexual Abuse Seeks Her Own 30 Seconds of Pleasure

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LUISA C. ESPOSITO, Civil Action No: 07 CV -11612 (SAS)
Plaintiff,

-against-

THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE OFFICE OF COURT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,
THOMAS J. CAHILL, in his official and individual PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
capacity, NAOMI GOLDSTEIN, in her official and TO RE-OPEN DOCKET
individual capacity, ALBERT S. BLINDER, in his NO: 07-CIV-11612 (SAS)
official and individual capacity, HARVEY GLADSTEIN
& PARTNERS LLC f/k/a GLADSTEIN & ISAAC, and
ALLEN H. ISAAC, individually and as a partner of
HARVEY GLADSTEIN & PARTNERS LLC f/k/a
GLADSTEIN & ISAAC, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
RAYMOND KELLY, in his official and individual capacity,
ROBERT ARBUISO, in his official and individual
capacity, and ADAM I. LAMBOY, in his official and
individual capacity, ARTHUR POLLACK, individually
and as a partner of POLLACK, POLLACK, ISAAC &
DeCICCO, LLP, CONRAD POLLACK, individually and
as a partner of POLLACK, POLLACK,ISAAC &
DeCICCO, LLP, BRIAN J. ISAAC, individually and as a
partner of POLLACK, POLLACK, ISAAC & DECICCO,
LLP and POLLACK, POLLACK, ISAAC &DeCICCO, LLP,
and Jane and John Does,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE

UPON various affidavits, submitted according to proof at trial, Plaintiff LUISA C.

ESPOSITO, on the day of August 30, 2010, now moves the Court for an order reopening the

above captioned case; Docket No. 07-Civ-11612 (SAS), Luisa C. Esposito v. The State Of New

York, et.als, based upon newly discovered evidence, and the (Decision and Order, dated June 1,

2010 by the Appellate Court, First Department, pertaining to the suspension of Defendant

Allen H. Isaac’s law license).

In support of the Motion to Reopen, Plaintiff states as follows:

PLAINTIFF, LUISA C. ESPOSITO, pro se, moves from the Court's August 8, 2008
Opinion and Order (the "Order"), (Attached hereto as Exhibit A), whereby the Court dismissed this case.

THE COURT’S AUGUST 8, 2008, ORDER & DECISION FAILED TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.

1) Plaintiff, (movant) contends that Isaac was dismissed in his individual capacity regarding her state case, (Luisa C. Esposito vs. Allen H. Isaac, et.als.,-502 TSN 2008), therefore, Defendants argument in their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, dated May 30, 2008, regarding duplicative claims are now moot.

2) The court never made findings in the August 8, 2008, order and decision as to why each of the individual parties (exclusive of the state actors) was dismissed from the case, specifically defendant Allen H. Isaac (my assailant).

3) Subsequently to her case being dismissed Plaintiff immediately filed a motion to reargue that was denied also without explanation as to why each of the individual parties was dismissed. The Second Circuit Appeals Court also affirmed and never addressed why the individual parties those who are not state actors were dismissed.

4) Therefore, Plaintiff, (movant) moves to reopen the part of the complaint that was never addressed pursuant to rule 60 (b), (6) regarding the above listed defendants.

5) The branch of the complaint that points to Defendant Allen Isaac personally and the individual parties pursuant to rule 60 (b), (6) were never addressed by the Court involves exceptional circumstance, regarding new evidence, the suspension of Defendant Allen H. Isaac’s law license. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B), the June 1, 2010, decision and order from the Appellate Court, First Department.

6) Plaintiff, (movant’s) complaint against the state actors, the court’s ruling involved agency actors and the court never addressed Defendants Isaac personally and the individual defendants from the law firms.


I. Standard of Review

Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment in a limited set of circumstances, including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b); Here, Plaintiff seeks relief under subsection (6) of
Rule 60(b), which permits a district court to exercise its discretion to set aside a final judgment
for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” The Third Circuit
“has consistently held that the Rule 60(b) ground for relief from judgment provides for
extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.”
Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002); see also, e.g., Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (“[O]ur cases have required a movant seeking relief under
Rule 60(b), (6) to show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final
judgment.”); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950), Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d
488, 493 (3d Cir.1975). Moreover, although “relief under 60(b), (6) is not limited by any strictly defined time period,” such relief “can be afforded under this rule [only] if it is sought within a reasonable time.” Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d at 493 (internal quotation marks omitted).

II. Basis For Re-Opening & Re-Instating Plaintiff’s Case/ Due to New Evidence, Exceptional Circumstances

In the Courts August 8, 2008, Opinion and Order, it states:

“These actions, all filed as related to Anderson v. The State of New York, relate to alleged corruption in the New York State courts. As discussed below, the United States Constitution does not permit this Court to supervise the departmental disciplinary committees or review the decisions of the courts of the State of New York, the only federal court that may review their decisions is the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs must direct their complaints to the court system, the Attorney General for the State of New York, or the appropriate United States Attorney. Because the Courts lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the departmental disciplinary committees and for the other reasons stated below, these actions are dismissed”. Notwithstanding the Court Statement above the District Court does have
jurisdiction pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims regarding Title V Sec. 40001-40703
(Violence Against Women Act) (“VAWA ACT”). Wikipedia: Violence Against Women Act

“The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, provided for automatic and mandatory restitution of those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The National Organization of Women heralded the bill as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades." VAWA and the 1994 Crime Bill in general was written by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, supported by Congressional Democrats and President Clinton, and opposed by then minority Congressional Republicans with a few exceptions. VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in October 2005, when it passed the Senate unanimously. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006. [1] The latest version for the first time also recognizes male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Moreover, Plaintiff did not pray for relief to review any Court decisions regarding the DDC, or regarding any standing pertaining to that matter because Plaintiff’s case was open and pending before the court at the time the lawsuit was filed (Docket No. 2005.3074). However, Plaintiff did pray for relief because she was denied due process under federally protected laws, regarding the unethical and flawed proceedings at the DDC, against her assailant, Defendant Allen Isaac. Plaintiff has newly discovered evidence, testimony according to proof at trial, pertains to Plaintiff’s defendants, which needs to be addressed before the Court; this evidence pertains to witness affidavits in support of Plaintiff’s claims. Testimony submitted according to proof at trial by Erika Zorn, Defendant Allen Isaac’s former employee, who interned at the law offices of Gladstein & Isaac, in or about 2004); and testimony submitted according to proof at trial by Ileana Filomeno, Defendant Allen Isaac’s former legal secretary, who testified at the (“DDC”) in support of Plaintiff’s claims and moreover the recent decision and order dated June 1, 2010, from the Appellate Court, First Department. Plaintiff would like to point out that she didn't even know the woman’s name (Ileana Filomeno) who testified on her behalf at the DDC in 2007 until discovery in her state case was made available to her in or about 2010. Still further, Plaintiff contends that her complaint involved various counts regarding Federal Constitutional Rights, regarding sexual assault, etc., which pertained to Violence Against Women’s Act, (“VAWA ACT”). Plaintiff Luisa C. Esposito respectfully requests that the Court re-open Docket number 07-Civ-11612 (SAS) Luisa C. Esposito vs. The State of New York, et.als., to its original status so that she may have the opportunity to plead her case properly in order to receive the proper justice she so deserves under the federally protected constitutional laws.

III. Newly Discovered Evidence & Order & Decision from the Appellate Court, First Department.

On April 6, 2010, Plaintiff contacted Erika Zorn, the former intern who use to work
for the law offices of Gladstein & Isaac; Plaintiff attained her information through discovery
pertaining to her State case. Ms. Zorn will be called to testify regarding her experience while working for the law offices of Gladstein & Isaac. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff contacted Ileana Filomeno, Defendant Allen H. Isaac’s former legal secretary. Plaintiff was able to attain her contact information through discovery pertaining to her state case (Index No: 109446/2006 & 502 TSN 2008). Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff she testified in or about the month of December 2007, before the First Departmental Disciplinary Committee against Mr. Isaac on behalf of Plaintiff; Ms. Filomeno also reported Mr. Isaac to the DDC because she had been similarly victimized by Defendant, Allen Isaac; (Please refer to the Appellate Court, First Department Decision and Order, attached hereto as Exhibit B); Plaintiff would like to point out that she didn't even know the woman’s name (Ileana Filomeno) who testified on her behalf at the DDC in 2007 until discovery in her state case was made available to her in or about 2010. (Defendants Attorneys had to know about Ms. Filomeno’s testimony at the DDC).
PART OF THE DECISION AND ORDER BY THE APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT, DATED JUNE 1, 2010. DEFENDANT ALLEN H. ISAAC IS SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICING LAW AS OF JULY 1, 2010. “The Committee charged respondent with acts of professional misconduct including making unwelcome sexual advances to L.E. in violation of DR 1-102(A)(7), asking L.E. for oral sex incident to his representation as trial counsel in violation of DR 5-111(B), boasting to L.E. that he is able to influence improperly Appellate Division judges in violation of DR 9-101(C), calling one of the First Department judges a "prick" in violation of DR 1-102 (A)(7) and making suggestive comments to his secretary and inappropriately touching her in violation of DR 1-102(A)(7)”. Moreover, Plaintiff would like to point out to the Court that although the DDC states in their June 1, 2010 order, “The Committee charged respondent with acts of professional misconduct including making unwelcome sexual advances to LE”, Defendant Allen Isaac committed Felony Level Sexual Abuse, Coercion, and Soliciting Sex From His Client, Obstruction of Justice, etc., these crimes were Reported to the Manhattan
Special Victims Squad, and listed as “Felony Level Sexual Abuse”; there was an arrest
warrant out for Defendant Allen Isaac, which the Police Department never acted upon
because “Favors Were Getting Called In”. Defendant Allen Isaac’s former legal secretary, Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff that some of the office staff at Gladstein & Isaac was well aware of Isaac’s sexual appetite towards attractive women and that he had a bad reputation throughout the office. Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff Frank Cerra, the Calendar Clerk, at Gladstein & Isaac, also witnessed Isaac grabbing Plaintiff’s buttocks. Mr. Cerra reported this to his Office manager, Margie Sanchez and also to Ms. Filomeno; Coincidently, Ms. Filomeno was fired by Harvey Gladstein after she testified at the DDC. Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff that Frank, the Calendar Clerk was also fired by Defendant Harvey Gladstein.

IV. Factual Background

The Sexual Assault

Respectfully, Plaintiff directs the Court to item number (1) on the docket of the instant case, Complaint, Sections 20, 21, and 22, pages 7 and 8. Plaintiff met with Detective Arbuiso of the Manhattan Special Victims Unit

Respectfully, Plaintiff directs the Court to item number (1) on the docket of the instant case, Complaint, Sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 pages 9, 10, 11, and 12. Plaintiff Files a Complaint with the DDC

Respectfully, Plaintiff directs the Court to item number (1) on the docket of the instant case, Complaint, Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, pages 12, and 13.

V. Conclusion

Plaintiff Esposito filed this motion within “a reasonable time” pursuant to FRCP 60 (b),
(6) and has demonstrated the requisite “exceptional circumstances.” Accordingly, this motion to reopen should be granted in its entirety and Case No: 07-CV-11612 (SAS) be re-instated to its original status.(Luisa C. Esposito vs. The State of New York, et.als, (SAS).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff’s respectfully requests that the Court reopen this case to its

original status, based on the newly discovered evidence, the suspension of Defendant Allen H.

Isaac’s law license, effective as of July 1, 2020, and in the interest of justice, and for such other

relief that the Court may deem just equitable and proper.

Dated: West Hempstead, N.Y. August 30, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Luisa C. Esposito, Plaintiff, pro-se
571 Roy Street, West Hempstead, N.Y 11552
(516) 741-0320

Cc:

The New York State Office of the Attorney General
Asst. AG Monica Connell, Esq.
By Hand: 120 Broadway, New York, NY10271

The City of New York Corporation Counsel
Craig Hanlon, Esq. & Sebastian Frank
By Hand: 100 Church Street, Law Dept. NY 10007

Gordon & Rees
Diane Krebs, Esq & Joshua Hurwit, Esq.
By Hand: 90 Broad Street, 23rd fl. NY 10004

Morgan Melhuish & Abrutyn
Douglas Langholz, Esq.
By Hand: 39 Broadway, 17th floor NY 10006

Epstein Becker & Green, P. C.
Traycee Ellen Klein, Esq. & Eric B. Topel, Esq.
By Hand: 250 Park Ave. NY 10177-1211

******************************************************************

PLAINTIFFS’ AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO REOPEN

THIS CASE BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE & WITNESSES
PLAINTIFF, LUISA C. ESPOSITO, pro se, swears under the penalties of perjury that the following statements are true and correct to the best of her recollection and knowledge. Plaintiff hereby respectfully moves the court to reopen this case , Docket No. 07-Civ-11612 (SAS), Luisa C. Esposito vs. The State Of New York, et.als ,from the Court's August 8, 2008 Opinion and Order (the "Order"), whereby the Court dismissed all cases related to Anderson v. State of New York (07 Civ. 9599 (S.D.N.Y.)(hereinafter, collectively, “plaintiff’s” or “related cases”), based on new evidence, and in the interest of justice. PLAINTIFF, LUISA C. ESPOSITO, pro se, moves from the Court's August 8, 2008 Opinion and Order (the "Order"), (Attached hereto as Exhibit A), whereby the Court dismissed this case.

THE COURT’S AUGUST 8, 2008, ORDER & DECISION FAILED TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.

1) Plaintiff, (movant) contends that Isaac was dismissed in his individual capacity regarding her state case, (Luisa C. Esposito vs. Allen H. Isaac, et.als-502 TSN 2008), therefore, Defendants argument in their motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, dated May 30, 2008, regarding duplicative claims are now moot.

2) The court never made findings in the August 8, 2008, order and decision as to why each of the individual parties (exclusive of the state actors) was dismissed from the case, specifically defendant Allen H. Isaac (my assailant).

3) Subsequently to her case being dismissed Plaintiff immediately filed a motion to reargue that was denied also without explanation as to why each of the individual parties was dismissed. The Second Circuit Appeals Court also affirmed and never addressed why the individual parties those who are not state actors were dismissed.

4) Therefore, Plaintiff, (movant) to reopen the part of the complaint that was never addressed pursuant to rule 60 (b), (6) regarding the above listed defendants.

5) The branch of the complaint that points to Defendant Allen Isaac personally and the individual parties pursuant to rule 60 (b), (6) were never addressed by the Court involves exceptional circumstance, regarding new evidence, the suspension of Defendant Allen H. Isaac’s law license. (Attached hereto as Exhibit B), the June 1, 2010, decision and order from the Appellate Court, First Department.

6) Plaintiff, (movant’s) complaint against the state actors, the court’s ruling involved agency actors and the court never addressed Defendants Isaac personally and the individual defendants from the law firms.


I. Standard of Review

Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment in a limited set of circumstances, including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or other
reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b); Here, Plaintiff seeks relief under subsection (6) of
Rule 60(b), which permits a district court to exercise its discretion to set aside a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” The Third Circuit “has consistently held that the Rule 60(b) ground for relief from judgment provides for
extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.”
Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002); see also, e.g., Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (“[O]ur cases have required a movant seeking relief under
Rule 60(b), (6) to show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final
judgment.”); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950), Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d
488, 493 (3d Cir.1975). Moreover, although “relief under 60(b), (6) is not limited by any strictly defined time period,” such relief “can be afforded under this rule [only] if it is sought within a reasonable time.” Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d at 493 (internal quotation marks omitted).

II. Basis For Re-Opening & Re-Instating Plaintiff’s Case/ Due to
New Evidence, Exceptional Circumstances

In the Courts August 8, 2008, Opinion and Order, she states in her introduction, “These actions, all filed as related to Anderson v. The State of New York, relate to alleged corruption in the New York State courts. As discussed below, the United States Constitution does not permit this Court to supervise the departmental disciplinary committees or review the decisions of the courts of the State of New York, the only federal court that may review their decisions is the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs must direct their complaints to the court system, the Attorney General for the State of New York, or the appropriate United States Attorney. Because the Courts lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the departmental disciplinary committees and for the other reasons stated below, these actions are dismissed”.
Notwithstanding the Court Statement above the District Court does have
jurisdiction pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims regarding new evidence and Title V
Sec. 40001-40703 (Violence Against Women Act) (“VAWA ACT”).
Wikipedia: Violence Against Women Act

“The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, provided for automatic and mandatory restitution of those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The National Organization of Women heralded the bill as "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades." VAWA and the 1994 Crime Bill in general was written by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, supported by Congressional Democrats and President Clinton, and opposed by then minority Congressional Republicans with a few exceptions. VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in October 2005, when it passed the Senate unanimously. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006. [1] The latest version for the first time also recognizes male victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Plaintiff did not pray for relief to review any Court decisions regarding the DDC or regarding any standing pertaining to that matter, because Plaintiff’s case was open and pending before the court at the time the lawsuit was filed (Docket No. 2005.3074). However, Plaintiff did pray for relief because she was denied due process under federally protected laws, regarding the unethical and flawed proceedings at the DDC against her assailant, Defendant Allen Isaac. Plaintiff has newly discovered evidence, the June 1, 2010, Order and Decision from the Appellate Court, First Department regarding the 6 month suspension of Defendant Allen H. Isaac’s law license and testimony according to proof at trial, pertains to Plaintiff’s defendants, which needs to be addressed before the Court; this evidence pertains to witness affidavits in support of Plaintiff’s claims. Testimony submitted according to proof at trial by Erika Zorn, Defendant Allen Isaac’s former employee, who interned at the law offices of Gladstein & Isaac, in or about 2004); and testimony submitted according to proof at trial by Ileana Filomeno, Defendant Allen Isaac’s former legal secretary, who testified at the (“DDC”) in support of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff would like to point out that she didn't even know the woman’s name (Ileana Filomeno) who testified on her behalf at the DDC in 2007 until discovery in her state case was made available to her in or about 2010.(Defendants Attorneys had to know about Ms. Filomeno’s testimony at the DDC).
Still further, Plaintiff contends that her complaint involved various counts regarding Federal Constitutional Rights, regarding sexual assault, etc., which pertained to Violence
Against Women’s Act, (“VAWA ACT”). Plaintiff Luisa C. Esposito respectfully requests that the Court re-open Docket number 07-Civ-11612 (SAS) Luisa C. Esposito vs. The State of New York, et.als., to its original status, so that she may have the opportunity to plead her case properly, in order to receive the proper justice she so deserves.

VI. Newly Discovered Evidence & Order & Decision from the Appellate Court, First Department.

On April 6, 2010, Plaintiff contacted Erika Zorn, the former intern who use to work
for the law offices of Gladstein & Isaac; Plaintiff attained her information through discovery
pertaining to her State case. Ms. Zorn will be called to testify regarding her experience while working for the law offices of Gladstein & Isaac. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff contacted Ileana Filomeno, Defendant Allen H. Isaac’s former legal secretary. Plaintiff was able to attain her contact information through discovery pertaining to her state case (Index No: 109446.2006 & 502 TSN 2008). Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff she testified in or about the month of December 2007, before the First Departmental Disciplinary Committee, against Mr. Isaac, on behalf of Plaintiff; Ms. Filomeno also reported Mr. Isaac to the DDC because she had been similarly victimized by Defendant, Allen Isaac; (Please refer to: Page (3), paragraph (3) of the Appellate Court, First Department Decision and Order, attached hereto as Exhibit B); Plaintiff would like to point out that she didn't even know the woman’s name, (Ileana Filomeno,) who testified on her behalf at the DDC in 2007 until discovery in her state case was made available to her in or about 2010. PART OF THE DECISION AND ORDER BY THE APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT, DATED JUNE 1, 2010. DEFENDANT ALLEN H. ISAAC IS SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICING LAW AS OF JUNE 1, 2010. “The Committee charged respondent with acts of professional misconduct including making unwelcome sexual advances to L.E. in violation of DR 1-102(A)(7), asking L.E. for oral sex incident to his representation as trial counsel in violation of DR 5-111(B), boasting to L.E. that he is able to influence improperly Appellate Division judges in violation of DR 9-101(C), calling one of the First Department judges a "prick" in violation of DR 1-102 (A)(7) and making suggestive comments to his secretary and inappropriately touching her in violation of DR 1-102(A)(7)”. Moreover, Plaintiff would like to point out to the Court that although the DDC states in their June 1, 2010 order, “The Committee charged respondent with acts of professional misconduct including making unwelcome sexual advances to LE”, Defendant Allen Isaac committed Felony Level Sexual Abuse, Coercion, and Soliciting Sex From His Client, Obstruction of Justice, etc., these crimes were Reported to the Manhattan Special Victims Squad, and listed as “Felony Level Sexual Abuse”; there was an arrest warrant out for Defendant Allen Isaac, which the Police Department never acted upon because “Favors Were Getting Called In”. Defendant Allen Isaac’s former legal secretary, Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff that some of the office staff at Gladstein & Isaac was well aware of Isaac’s sexual appetite towards attractive women; and that he had a bad reputation throughout the office. Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff Frank, the Calendar Clerk, at Gladstein & Isaac, also witnessed Isaac grabbing Plaintiff’s buttocks. Frank reported this to his Office manager, Margie Sanchez, and also to Ms. Filomeno; Coincidently, Ms. Filomeno was fired by Harvey Gladstein after she testified at the DDC. Ms. Filomeno told Plaintiff that Frank, the Calendar Clerk was also fired by Defendant Harvey Gladstein.

VII. Factual Background

The Sexual Assault

Respectfully, Plaintiff directs the Court to item number (1) on the docket of the instant case, Complaint, Sections 20, 21, and 22, pages 7 and 8. Plaintiff met with Detective Arbuiso of the Manhattan Special Victims Unit

Respectfully, Plaintiff directs the Court to item number (1) on the docket of the instant case, Complaint, Sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 pages 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Plaintiff Files a Complaint with the DDC

Respectfully, Plaintiff directs the Court to item number (1) on the docket of the instant case, Complaint, Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, pages 12, and 13.

VIII. Conclusion

Plaintiff Esposito filed this motion within “a reasonable time” pursuant to FRCP 60 (b),
(6) and has demonstrated the requisite “exceptional circumstances.” Accordingly, this motion to reopen should be granted in its entirety and Case No: 07-CV-11612 (SAS) be re-instated to its original status.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff’s respectfully requests that the Court reopen this case to its original status, based on the newly discovered evidence, witnesses, the recent decision and order dated June 1, 2010, by the Appellate Court, First Department, and in the interest of justice, and for such other relief that the Court may deem just equitable and proper.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that she is the plaintiff in the above action, that she has read the above and that the information contained therein is true and correct, 28 U.S.C. § 1746; 18 U.S.C § 1621.

Dated: West Hempstead, New York - August 30, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Luisa C. Esposito, Plaintiff, pro-se
571 Roy Street, West Hempstead, N.Y. 11552
(516) 741-0320 (Telephone)