the Code. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has addressed the continuing viability of the exception. Two bankruptcy judges in this district have decided the issue, holding that the new value exception survived the codification of the absolute priority rule. In re Fur Creations By Varriale, Ltd., 188 B.R. 754 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995); In re One Times Square Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 159 B.R. 695 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1993). Circuit and district courts across the country have split as to whether the new value exception survived and no clear line of authority 6 L.Ed.2d 648 dismissed, 513 U.S. 18, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994); In re U.S. Truck Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 581 (6th Cir.1986) (applying new value exception); In re Bjolmes Realty Trust, 134 B.R. 1000 (Bankr.D.Mass.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Tallahassee Assocs., L.P., 132 B.R. 712
holding that no complete innocence exception to the doench doctrine exists holding that such a duty exists holding new value exception exists holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies recognizing exception