Epstein Secrets

r, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

nguage of the clause meaningless, and I am obliged to read the lease in a manner that gives full force and effect to all clauses contained therein. See Lloyds Bank plc v. Republic of Ecuador, No. 96 Civ. 1789, 1998 WL 118170, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 1998). Accordingly, OFM could not have orally consented to Epste

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

anguage of the clause meaningless, and I am obliged to read the lease in a manner that gives full force and effect to all clauses contained therein. See Lloyds Bank plc v. Republic of Ecuador, No. 96 Civ. 1789, 1998 WL 118170, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 1998). Accordingly, OFM could not have orally consented to Epste

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

anguage of the clause meaningless, and I am obliged to read the lease in a manner that gives full force and effect to all clauses contained therein. See Lloyds Bank plc I. Republic of Ecuador, No. 96 Civ. 1789, 1998 WL 118170, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 1998). Accordingly, OFM could not have orally consented to Epste