Archive

2 fired dancers, donor added to NYC Ballet lawsuit over nude images | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

2 fired dancers, donor added to NYC Ballet lawsuit over nude images

The Associated Press
2467922467924cc8656b2d64408fabe8a90761e4a39f
Attorney Jordan Merson flanked by attorney Jaclyn Ponish and law clerk Jesse Mautner as he speaks to reporters Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2018, in New York. Merson represents Alexandra Waterbury, who filed a lawsuit against her ex-boyfriend and the New York City Ballet where he had been a principal dancer.

NEW YORK — A woman who sued the New York City Ballet company over the sharing of nude photos and videos is amending her lawsuit to add two fired dancers and a donor as defendants.

A lawyer for Alexandra Waterbury said Tuesday that dancers Amar Ramasar and Zachary Catazaro as well as donor Jared Longhitano participated in the unlawful sharing of nude photos of women taken without their consent.

Ramasar and Catazaro were fired by the company on Saturday. Both said they would fight to be reinstated.

Efforts to reach Longhitano for comment weren’t immediately successful.

Waterbury’s attorney, Jordan Merson, said City Ballet should return the money that Longhitano donated.

A City Ballet spokesman said Longhitano donated $12,000 to the company between 2010 and 2016.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.