Epstein Secrets

governs in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpreting the particular provision of the Postal Service lease at issue. See 767 F.2d at 880-81. FN6. Other courts, too, have applied state substantive law as the rule of decision in landlord-tenant disp

Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

governs in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpreting the particular provision of the Postal Service lease at issue. See 767 F.2d at 880-81. FN6. Other courts, too, have applied state substantive law as the rule of decision in landlord-tenant disp

Heilbrun, Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

overns in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpreting the particular provision of the Postal Service lease at issue. See 767 P.M at 88041. 6. Other courts, too, have applied state substan- tive law as the rule of decision In landlord-tenant disput

case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) 0FM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) 0FM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease be- Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the -Subtenants"). The Subtenants were add

dant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fish- er in 1996, purportedly without the Govern- ment's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to ter- minate Epstein's lease and brought this

governs in landlord-tenant disputes involving the Government, it nevertheless relied on state law cases in interpreting the particular provision of the Postal Service lease at issue. See 767 F.2d at 880-81. FN6. Other courts, too, have applied state substantive law as the rule of decision in landlord-tenant disp

is case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) OFM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) OFM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease because it breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably with

efendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this