Epstein Secrets

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alkla The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS Government's Protection Of Premises The premises at

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

December 23, 1997 and has served the additional defendants with process ( id .). The Present Motion The second amended complaint named Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soifer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H.

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

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, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a the Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H.

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

t 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, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a the Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H. Martin,

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alk/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Governme

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

ember 23, 1997 and has served the additional defendants with process ( id .). A. The Present Motion The second amended complaint named Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H. Martin,

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher a/k/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soffer ("Soffer")' from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). On February 2, 1998, the Governme

Administration for attorney registration purposes (see id., Exhs. E-F). The Government has not consented to the occupancy of the premises by any of Fisher's subtenants, including the present respondents (Massey Dec. ¶ 2 & n.1). Accordingly, the present SONY_GM_02742791 EFTA _00229440 EFTA01325006

cember 23, 1997 and has served the additional defendants with process (i l.). C. The Present Motion The second amended complaint named Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H.

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

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, Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a the Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H.