Crystal McKinney v. Sean Combs— Gender-Motivated Protection Law NYC

By -
L-R Sean Combs and Crystal McKinney

Case Summary
Sean "Diddy" Combs is facing accusations from a former model, who claims in a lawsuit that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by the rap mogul.

In the complaint, filed Tuesday in a U.S. District Court, Crystal McKinney claims that she was "drugged and sexually assaulted" in 2003 by Combs, 54, after a Men's Fashion Week event in New York City. The amount McKinney is seeking in damages is unspecified.

McKinney, who was 22 at the time of the alleged assault, said that an unnamed fashion designer invited her to attend the event at Cipriani Downtown, a Manhattan restaurant, where she met Combs. She accuses Diddy, of forcing her to perform oral sex on him at his New York City recording studio in 2003. 

McKinney said she was given alcohol and marijuana and then was led into a bathroom, where she said Combs attempted to force her into a sexual act. Combs has not yet responded.

Because the allegations reference events that occurred more than two decades ago, the lawsuit was brought under New York City's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act. The measure, for a limited amount of time, allows accusers to file civil complaints involving claims after the statute of limitations have expired.

Plaintiff is bringing suit to "redress the substantial and lifetime injuries she has suffered as a result of being drugged and sexually assaulted by Sean Combs or “P. Diddy.”

Combs has been the subject of several lawsuits from others who have accused him of sexual and physical abuse, according to NBC News. McKinney filed her complaint days after a video was made public of Combs beating his former girlfriend, Cassandra Ventura, known as "Cassie," in 2016.

Case Information
Court Info
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Defendants
Sean Combs
Bad Boy Entertainment LLC
Sean John Clothing LLC
Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff's Attorneys
Phillips & Associates
Michelle Anne Caiola 
Jonathan Martin Goldhirsch
45 Broadway
Suite 430
New York, NY 10006
212-248-7431 
mcaiola@TPGlaws.com
jgoldhirsch@tpglaws.com


The Law
Beginning on March 1, 2023, the statute of limitations for allegations under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Protection Law (“VGMVPL”) will be extended for two years to afford alleged victims of gender motivated violence a two-year lookback window to bring a civil action for claims that have been previously time barred. Individuals will have from March 1, 2023 to March 1, 2025 to commence a civil suit against such alleged wrongdoers and institutions where they may seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney’s fees and costs, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate under VGMVPL for participation in such crimes.

§ 8-901 Short Title."Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act"

§ 8-902 Declaration of Legislative Findings and Intent. Gender-motivated violence inflicts serious physical, psychological, emotional and economic harm on its victims. Congressional findings have documented that gender-motivated violence is widespread throughout the United States, representing the leading cause of injuries to women ages 15 to 44. Further statistics have shown that three out of four women will be the victim of a violent crime sometime during their lives, and as many as four million women a year are victims of domestic violence. Senate hearings, various task forces and the United States Department of Justice have concluded that victims of gender-motivated violence frequently face a climate of condescension indifference and hostility in the court system and have documented the legal system's hostility towards sexual assault and domestic violence claims. CONTINUE READING



Location: New York, NY, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jonathan Majors — Assault and Harassment Convictions

By -
Image
Update April 8 - Jonathan Majors, whose promising acting career stalled after a domestic violence conviction in New York, was sentenced to domestic violence programming after the judge decided "jail is not necessary." Majors must complete a 52-week in-person batterers intervention program in Los Angeles, continue mental health counseling and stay away from the victim, his ex-girlfriend, Grace Jabbari, said Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Michael Gaffey. April 3 - Jonathan Majors faced a legal setback when the judge in his domestic violence case declined his lawyer’s motion to set aside his December guilty verdict. “Jonathan feels disappointed by the outcome of the motion, yet he upholds respect for the process,” his lawyer Priya Chaudhry said in a statement. Due to the judge’s decision, the 34-year-old former Marvel star — will still be sentenced as scheduled on April 8. Case Summary On March 25, around 12:40am, Jonathan Majors and Grace Jabbari were taking a private car servi
Read more

Asta Jonasson v. Vin Diesel, One Race Films, Inc. et al.—Wrongful Termination, Sexual battery lawsuit brought by former assistant

By -
Image
Case Summary In a civil suit filed on December 21st in Los Angeles Superior Court stemming from a 2010 incident in which Vin Diesel’s former assistant, Asta Jonasson alleges that Diesel forcibly groped, restrained and kissed her in a hotel suite in Atlanta and masturbated in front of her. The complaint states Diesel ignored Jonasson’s “clear statements of non-consent,” and after she “screamed and ran towards the nearby bathroom,” he “pinned her against the wall with his body." Jonasson claims that Samantha Vincent, the president of Diesel’s company One Race at the time, called her “mere hours” after the alleged assault and “terminated Ms. Jonasson’s employment.” “No one is too famous or powerful to evade justice,” Claire-Lise Kutlay of Greenberg Gross LLP, attorney for Jonasson, wrote in a statement. “We hope her courageous decision to come forward helps create lasting change and empowers other survivors.” “Vin Diesel categorically denies this claim in its entirety,” Bryan Freedma
Read more

Antitrust Law: American Medical Response v. The County of San Bernardino et. al.

By -
Image
  Update On April 19th, the complaint and petition was dismissed without leave to amend. The judge decided, that the county was not in violation of the Sherman Act stating "in creating the state-action immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court made clear the Sherman Act was not intended to reach the activities of state governments," citing Llewellyn v. Crothers, 765 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1985). The judge in regards to dismissal without leave to amend wrote, "A claim is futile, and the court may dismiss without leave to amend,“if it determines that ‘allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency,’ or if the [party] had several opportunities to amend its [pleading] and repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies.” Telesaurus VPC, LLC v. Power , 623 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir. 2010). Case Summary American Medical Response is suing the board in federal court. This is three months after the San Bernardino County Board of Supervi
Read more