ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Rape Accuser Fights to Keep N.Y. Jurisdiction for Her Suit

Trump Rape Accuser Fights to Keep N.Y. Jurisdiction for Her Suit

(Bloomberg) -- A New York advice columnist who claims Donald Trump raped her in a dressing room two decades ago said the president can’t avoid New York jurisdiction in her defamation lawsuit against him because he recently confirmed that he still lives in the state.

E. Jean Carroll, who went public with her claims in June 2019, said in a court filing Monday in New York that Trump’s attempt to dismiss the suit on jurisdiction grounds should be denied because he referred to Manhattan as his home during a phone call with governors about the nationwide unrest over the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

Trump Rape Accuser Fights to Keep N.Y. Jurisdiction for Her Suit

“During that same call, Trump openly admitted that he continues to ‘live in Manhattan,’” according to the filing. “Trump may reside now in Washington, D.C., but he has disavowed any intention of staying there after his presidency. And while he may intend to move to Florida at some point in the future, there can be no question that he does not reside there now.”

Trump’s lawyer in the suit, Lawrence S. Rosen, didn’t return a call for comment on the filing.

Carroll alleges Trump assaulted her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation and called her a liar seeking to promote her career. An earlier filing by Carroll raised the prospect that she would seek Trump’s taxes to prove New York was his primary home during the relevant time period. The president has aggressively fought against any effort, including by Congress, to gain access to his taxes.

Trump in September announced his intention to change his residence from New York to Florida, saying New York politicians had treated him badly despite millions of dollars he pays in taxes.

Carroll’s lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, has said that Trump’s attempt to dismiss the case on jurisdiction grounds is a dubious argument intended to delay the pretrial exchange of evidence.

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.