Epstein Secrets

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 159055 (S.D.N.Y.)) United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN, Ivan S. Fisher,

ded in part, 14 F.3d 733 (2d Cir.I994). Whether the text of an agreement is ambiguous or unambiguous is a matter of law to be decided by the Court. Sterling Drug, 792 F.Supp. at 1366. A contract is not deemed ambiguous unless it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, and the Court makes th

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 159055 (S.D.N.Y.)) United States of America, Plaintiff, I. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN, Ivan S. Fisher, E

ded in part, 14 F.3d 733 (2d Cir.1994). Whether the text of an agreement is ambiguous or unambiguous is a matter of law to be decided by the Court. Sterling Drug, 792 F.Supp. at 1366. A contract is not deemed ambiguous unless it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, and the Court makes th

est Practice Categories: Estate Planning Family Law Litigation & Appeals Real Estate Law Land Use & Zoning 2007 Thomson/west. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Full... 5/22/2007 EFTA00187402 Page 2 of 2 Page 2 Areas o

in part, 14 F.3d 738 (2d Cir.1994). Whether the text of an agreement is ambiguous or unam- biguous is a matter of law to be decided by the Court. Sterling Drug, 792 F.Supp. at 1366. A contract is not deemed ambiguous unless it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, and the Court makes

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 159055 (S.D.N.Y.)) United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN, Ivan S. Fisher,

ded in part, 14 F.3d 733 (2d Cir.1994). Whether the text of an agreement is ambiguous or unambiguous is a matter of law to be decided by the Court. Sterling Drug, 792 F.Supp. at 1366. A contract is not deemed ambiguous unless it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, and the Court makes t