Epstein Secrets

ssions ("OFM") of the United States Department of State (the "State Department") against defendants Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"), Ivan S. Fisher ("Fisher"), Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soifer a/Ida Fisher & Sophir, D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne

sion of the Premises to the Government. 3. Defendant Fisher is a resident of the State of New York and is an unapproved subtenant of the Premises. Fisher has availed himself of the use and benefits of the Premises and has failed to surrender possession of the Premises to the Government. Defendant Elly

. Ron Soffer ("Soifer") is a resident of both the State of New York and France, with a business address at 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York. Soifer is named as a defendant EFTA00223036 because he is an unapproved occupant of the Premises; has availed herself of the use and benefits of the Pre

her & Sophir ("Fisher & Soffer") is a general partnership with a business address at 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York. Defendants Fisher and Soifer are partners in Fisher & Soffer. Fisher & Soifer is named as a defendant because it is an unapproved occupant of the Premises; has availed itself of

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

Ron Soffer, did not sign the stipulation. He has not responded to the Government's motion because the motion is not returnable until April 20, 1998. Soifer, however, can have no greater rights than Fisher. Hence, the Government's motion is granted as to Soffer as well. Of course, if Soffer believes he

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

March 13, 1998, after the Government submitted its motion, Diane Fisher executed the stipula- tion and order, also agreeing to be bound. To date, Soifer still has not executed the stipulation. Hence, the Government's motion for summary judgment against the Subten- ants is still pending with respect