Galella v onassis

Galella v. Onassis, 533 F. Supp. 1076 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)

Onassis ran to her car as Agent Kalafatis and the doorman blocked Santa. Kennedyseek an order holding respondent Ronald E. Kuhn had visited the scene and with appropriate equipment tried it out. Numerous claims of error in evidentiary rulings are also raised. He now again presses the same grounds for our recusal.

We cannot say that no such showing has been made here. A judge may be disqualified for bias only on motion supported by a written affidavit of facts supporting the claim of bias and a certificate of good faith from the counsel of record.

Certain incidents of photographic coverage by Galella, subsequent to an agreement among the parties Galella v onassis Galella not to so engage, resulted in the issuance of a temporary restraining order to prevent further harassment of Mrs. The statute 28 U. Onassis moved to hold Galella in contempt of the October 8th order, citing events occurring on October 28th.

The motion to remand was made six months after dismissal of the suit against the agents and on the eve of trial; the United States Government had then intervened in the case, [note 15] a series of hearings on the substantive claims had been heard by the federal court, a special master in charge of discovery had been appointed and a number of motions had been heard, and others were pending.

Galella She testified: No error was made in refusing to excuse the untimeliness of the motion; any other decision would have been reversible error. Van Nierop, 56 Misc.

Galella leapt from side to side and knocked people about. We advised Julien that if he intended to bring on such a motion, he should do so promptly because a trial date would be set shortly.

After giving this testimony, Galella learned that the defense had subpoenaed Nancy Collins. Galella made false statements about this litigationindeed, he admitted perjuring himself.

Plaintiff was waiting at the side of the building, hiding from the doorman. Ordinarily enforcement agents charged with the duty of arrest are not so immune. Onassis and her children and from communicating or attempting to communicate with them. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case.

This episode was testified to in detail by defendantAgents Connelly, Walsh and Kalafatis,and supported by a report of Agent Kalafatis dated September 25, Plaintiff continued at enormous length to toss around without restraint his baseless "facts. Of major importance in determining the scope of the relief to be afforded here is the attitude which Galella has demonstrated toward the process of this Court in the past.

The failure to file an affidavit or certificate to disqualify the trial judge On January 19, almost a full month before the trial date, Mr.Galella v.

Galella v. Onassis

Onassis, F. Supp. (S.D.N.Y. ) case opinion from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Friedman testified that Galella told him that he, Galella, had told Mr.

Onassis that he would stop if he were given a job with Olympic Airlines. () Galella admitted he had asked Mr.

Galella v. Onassis, 353 F. Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

Onassis for a job with Olympic Airlines, but denied offering to stop in exchange for the job. The famous whisper is still there. But the image, as Jacqueline Onassis first took the stand today in what she called "the ordeal of court" against longtime nemesis Ron Galella, was somewhat modified.

Just prior to trial Galella deposed Mrs. Onassis.

Under protective order of the court, the defendant was allowed to testify at the office of the U.S. Attorney and outside the presence of Galella. After a six-week trial the court dismissed Galella's claim and granted relief to both the defendant and the intervenor.

Ron Galella

Galella was enjoined from (1. The injunction enjoined Galella from keeping Onassis or her children under surveillance, from following them, from coming within yards of Onassis’s home or the children’s schools, within 75 yards of the children, or within 50 yards of Onassis, from using the name or picture of Onassis or her.

The district court dismissed Galella’s claim, and found Galella guilty of harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, commercial exploitation of Onassis’s personality, and invasion of privacy.

Galella v onassis
Rated 4/5 based on 15 review