34 East 69th Street: Jeffrey Epstein’s Earlier Manhattan Residence
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Historical address | 34 East 69th Street, Manhattan, New York |
| Principal Epstein association | Leased personal residence, followed by a disputed sublease to Ivan Fisher |
| Ownership during the litigation | Property of Iran, under United States custodial administration |
| Epstein’s landlord | Office of Foreign Missions, United States Department of State |
| Lease commencement | February 1, 1992 |
| Amended contractual term | Through January 31, 1997, subject to earlier termination |
| Monthly rent schedule | $12,000 through January 1994; $13,000 for the next year; $14,000 for the following year; $15,000 from February 1996 |
| Departure described in the civil record | January 1996; this does not establish when he first used his separate East 71st Street residence |
| Fisher sublease | Effective May 7, 1996, with regular monthly installments of $20,000 |
| Government termination | Effective August 23, 1996 |
| Civil proceedings | United States v. Epstein, 96 Civ. 8307; related Epstein v. Fisher, 97 Civ. 1489 |
| Documented outcome | Ejectment judgment in 1998; eviction service recorded July 16, 1998; settlement and dismissal in 1999 |
| Later evidentiary significance | Prosecutors sought an earlier deposition in 2007; Maxwell’s defense offered occupancy records and a deposition excerpt in 2021 |
| Last checked | October 8, 2026 |
34 East 69th Street was Jeffrey Epstein’s leased Manhattan residence in the early 1990s. The property belonged to Iran and was administered by the United States Department of State’s Office of Foreign Missions, known as OFM. Epstein’s association with it is documented by a signed lease, an amendment, correspondence, a sublease and federal litigation.
The civil case ultimately returned possession to the government after Epstein sublet the premises to Ivan Fisher without the written approval required by the lease. The address also became relevant to later efforts to obtain Epstein’s deposition and to a dispute during Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal trial about when Epstein occupied different New York homes.
This was a separate property from 9 East 71st Street. The dates of a lease, a tenant’s departure and a court ordered eviction describe different events. Keeping them separate prevents the extended litigation history from becoming an inaccurate claim that Epstein personally lived at East 69th Street until 1998 or 1999.
Important Points
- Epstein was a tenant. The reviewed civil record identifies Iran as the owner and OFM as custodian and landlord.
- The executed August 1992 amendment gives a graduated rent schedule. The $15,000 monthly figure in the 1998 opinion describes the final scheduled rate and should not be applied to the entire tenancy.
- The lease began February 1, 1992. Its amended expiration date was January 31, 1997, but OFM terminated it effective August 23, 1996.
- The civil record places Epstein’s departure in January 1996. It does not establish that he could not have occupied or visited another residence before then.
- Epstein and Fisher signed their sublease after OFM expressly refused permission. Fisher maintained that Epstein had represented the arrangement as approved.
- Judge Denny Chin ruled that advance written approval was required and granted the government’s ejectment claim. The ruling concerned possession and lease obligations.
- A released docket records eviction service on July 16, 1998 and subsequent settlement. The dispute did not end with the published summary judgment opinion alone.
- The February 1998 confidentiality ruling concerned discovery, initially Fisher’s tax return. It was not a criminal immunity agreement for Epstein.
- Prosecutors could not locate an Epstein deposition in the retrieved files in 2007. A deposition excerpt was nevertheless discussed in Maxwell’s 2021 trial, where the court excluded the offered material.
- Later occupants and businesses belong to the building’s subsequent history. Their use of the same address does not connect them to Epstein’s conduct.
Evidence Appearances
| Record | Date or period | What it documents | Principal limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFTA00597016, lease packet viewer; lease pages 8 to 14 | Effective February 1, 1992 | Original lease, stamped EFTA00597023 to EFTA00597029 | Contains handwritten changes and imperfect OCR; page images control |
| EFTA00597031 and EFTA00597032 | August 28, 1992 | Signed amendment, full rent schedule and extension through January 1997 | First page prints a street number variant discussed below |
| EFTA01249916, correspondence viewer; page 2, EFTA01249917 | July 27, 1993 | Interlochen letter addressed to Epstein at East 69th Street | A mailing address and donor acknowledgment, not an occupancy log |
| EFTA00597034 to EFTA00597046 | May 7, 1996 | Fisher sublease, payment terms and improvement provisions | An agreement between Epstein and Fisher did not supply OFM approval |
| EFTA00597048 and EFTA00597049; EFTA00597052 | June 3 and August 7, 1996 | Default and termination notices | Government positions and contractual notices, followed by litigation |
| EFTA01325020, decision viewer; readable PDF | February 19, 1998 | Confidentiality decision concerning civil discovery | Does not bar ordinary criminal investigation or grant immunity |
| EFTA01325008, opinion viewer; readable PDF | Opinion copy dated April 1, 1998 | Lease history, parties’ arguments and ejectment ruling | Docket references also describe the decision as dated March 31 |
| EFTA00187391, docket packet viewer; pages 55 to 71 | Dockets retrieved May 22, 2007, recording events through 2000 | Judgment, eviction service, appeal dismissal, settlement and case closures | Docket summaries do not reproduce every underlying order or settlement provision |
| EFTA01325022 and EFTA01325025 | June and July 2007 | Federal prosecutors’ efforts to retrieve an Epstein deposition | An unsuccessful search is not proof of destruction or permanent disappearance |
| United States v. Maxwell, Document 763 | December 17, 2021 | Arguments and rulings concerning East 69th Street occupancy evidence | The arguments were not themselves witness testimony or findings about abuse at this address |
An Iranian Property Under United States Custody
Judge Chin’s opinion described the premises as the former residence of Iran’s Deputy Consul General. It stated that the Iranian official departed after diplomatic ties were severed in 1980, while ownership remained with Iran. The United States assumed responsibility for care and maintenance, with the opinion citing the Foreign Missions Act and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The government’s 1996 complaint supplied additional context. It described Iranian property frozen under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and applicable executive orders, and said OFM managed and leased the premises under a Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control license.
The distinction between custody and ownership is central. The government’s role as landlord did not mean that Epstein acquired title from the United States. Nor was this a forfeiture of Epstein’s own property following a criminal prosecution. The later suit sought to recover possession of a building that the government was already administering.
The sources differ in their description of the former Iranian occupant. The original complaint calls the building the residence of Iran’s former ambassador to the United Nations; the opinion identifies the Deputy Consul General. The narrower description supported across these records is a former Iranian diplomatic residence. The frequently used label “Iranian embassy” should not be treated as an independently established description of the building’s exact function.
The Original Lease and Its Residential Purpose
The lease’s first page names OFM as landlord and Jeffrey E. Epstein as tenant, with Wexner Investment Company beneath his name. Its signature page identifies Epstein with the title of president of that company. Those references are documentary links to his business identity; they do not name Leslie Wexner as a party, establish that Wexner personally paid the rent or transfer ownership of the premises.
The opening date was changed by hand to February 1, 1992, with an initial end date of January 31, 1994. The later sublease describes the underlying lease as dated January 2, 1992. For the period of occupancy, the operative commencement date is supported by both the amendment and the civil record.
The use clause permitted Epstein, a spouse or children if any, personal servants and employees, and approved subtenants or assignees and their families. This is contractual language identifying permitted occupants. It should not be read as evidence that Epstein actually had a wife or children living there.
The assignment and subletting clause required the landlord’s advance written permission. Other provisions dealt with repairs, approved renovations, default notices and the respective parties’ obligations. The original security deposit was $12,000.
The lease also granted a right of first refusal to purchase if the landlord decided to sell, at a price corresponding to current market value. That conditional right was not a sale, an option exercised by Epstein or evidence that he ever owned the building.
The Actual Rent Schedule
The signed August 28, 1992 amendment, stamped EFTA00597032, gives the following schedule:
| Period | Monthly rent |
|---|---|
| February 1, 1992 through January 31, 1994 | $12,000 |
| February 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995 | $13,000 |
| February 1, 1995 through January 31, 1996 | $14,000 |
| February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997 | $15,000 |
The 1998 opinion’s background section instead describes the rent as $15,000 per month when summarizing the 1992 lease. That compressed account does not reproduce the executed schedule. The original lease image and signed amendment establish $12,000 for the first two years, with $15,000 applying from February 1996.
The final scheduled period was itself cut short by the government’s termination. A rent schedule identifies contractual obligations; it is not proof that every payment was made on time or that the tenancy remained valid until its originally planned end.
The Amendment and the Renewal Dispute
Amendment No. 1 made the lease term five years from February 1, 1992 through January 31, 1997. It preserved the existing provisions except where expressly changed and added a right of first refusal to lease the premises again at the then fair market rent.
The amendment also reflected the building’s unusual custodial status. From February 1995 onward, if the State Department relinquished custodial responsibility, the lease could be terminated on 120 days’ written notice. This replaced the earlier diplomatic relations related cancellation language for that later period.
The first amendment page visibly prints “34 East 67th Street.” The surrounding lease, sublease, notices, complaint and judicial opinion identify 34 East 69th Street, and the complaint presents this document as the amendment to that lease. The isolated variant should be preserved as a discrepancy in the document, rather than used to invent another Epstein property.
Contemporary Correspondence
Interlochen Center for the Arts wrote to Epstein at 34 East 69th Street on July 27, 1993. Timothy J. Ambrose thanked him for providing private aircraft transportation for Itzhak Perlman to the campus in August and described the support as an in kind gift.
The letter independently confirms that an outside institution used this residential address during the lease period. Other correspondence in the same packet uses Epstein’s Villard House office at 457 Madison Avenue. The coexistence of those addresses illustrates the difference between his residence and his business correspondence address. The acknowledgment does not establish wrongdoing by the institution or the musician.
Leaving the Residence and Negotiating a Sublease
The 1996 complaint alleged that Epstein vacated around January 3, 1996 without telling OFM. The 1998 opinion describes his departure more generally as January 1996. In March, he began negotiating with Xenophon Galinas over a possible assignment or sublease, including a proposed $100,000 payment for improvements.
The opinion recounts simultaneous negotiations with Fisher. Fisher wanted State Department approval and assurance that he could remain after January 1997. Epstein relied on the amendment’s right of first refusal when representing that the lease could be renewed.
Galinas also negotiated directly with OFM. An April 12, 1996 letter agreement contemplated a five year lease beginning February 1997, initially at $16,000 per month and rising to $18,000 in the final year. It was subject to Epstein’s renewal rights and personal use of the premises. Later correspondence characterized that arrangement as an expression of interest rather than a binding final lease.
Epstein asserted that Richard Massey of OFM orally approved the Fisher sublease during an April 19 call with Epstein’s transaction counsel, Jeffrey Schantz. OFM expressly refused written permission on April 26, while allowing a possible sublease to Galinas for the remainder of 1996. The alleged oral approval remained disputed. The court later resolved the legal issue without deciding whether that conversation actually produced oral consent.
The Fisher Agreement and Its Financial Terms
Epstein and Fisher’s sublease was effective May 7, 1996. It provided an initial term ending January 31, 1997 and required $177,096.77 in total scheduled rent: a first installment of $17,096.77 and eight further installments of $20,000. Fisher also agreed to a $20,000 security deposit.
The regular $20,000 installment exceeded Epstein’s then scheduled OFM rent by $5,000. That arithmetic describes the contractual difference, rather than net profit after every expense or proof that the full intended term was paid.
The renewal provisions contemplated continuation if the underlying lease was extended or renewed within a $20,000 monthly ceiling. They also provided for a possible new direct lease between OFM and Fisher. Specified longer term arrangements could trigger a separate $55,000 payment to Epstein for use of improvements, with conditions and exceptions. Another provision calculated an improvement payment by subtracting $5,000 for each paid rent installment from $100,000 in specified early assignment or termination circumstances.
The agreement allocated rights in improvements, furnishings and equipment and included an inventory. Those contractual claims are not an independent adjudication of ownership of every fixture. They help explain why the dispute concerned more than simply who slept in the house.
The sublease anticipated a government challenge and required Epstein to defend its validity if OFM brought proceedings over missing approval. Fisher later said that he entered the agreement because Epstein represented that the State Department had approved it and that renewal rights had been exercised. The court’s account preserves that as Fisher’s position.
Default and Termination in 1996
OFM’s June 3 notice said Epstein no longer lived in the premises and Fisher was occupying them without approval. It directed Epstein to cure the default by having Fisher leave permanently and reoccupying the residence himself. The notice allowed thirty days after receipt.
The letter went to Epstein at J. Epstein & Company in the Villard House, 457 Madison Avenue, with a copy to Schantz. That routing documents the role of the separate office in handling the residential dispute.
The August 7 termination letter stated that Fisher remained and the lease would end August 23, 1996. It required the premises to be vacated by that date. The original complaint elsewhere gives August 20 for returning possession; the actual letter and later opinion identify August 23 as the operative termination date.
The government continued accepting some rent while sending notices. Epstein and Fisher argued that this waived the claimed default. Judge Chin rejected that argument, relying on the chronology and the lease’s nonwaiver provision. OFM later accepted August rent only through August 23 and refunded the balance.
Fisher stopped paying Epstein after a September 1996 meeting with a federal prosecutor. He maintained that he offered to pay OFM directly and received no response. By this point, personal occupancy, rights under the head lease and payment obligations under the sublease had become separate disputed issues.
The Federal Ejectment Case
The complaint was dated October 30, 1996. The released federal docket records filing on November 4, 1996 as United States v. Epstein, 96 Civ. 8307. The government sought possession and unpaid use and occupancy, among other relief. Fisher’s own subtenants were later added as defendants.
Epstein also brought a holdover proceeding against Fisher in New York City Civil Court for unpaid sublease rent. Fisher removed it to federal court, where it became 97 Civ. 1489. Judge Chin denied remand and consolidated the proceedings.
The ejectment opinion held that the lease unambiguously required advance written consent. An alleged oral assurance could not satisfy that requirement. The judge therefore did not need to decide whether OFM had actually given oral approval.
The court also applied the relevant New York landlord and tenant rule to the consent question. Because the parties had not included a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of approval, OFM could refuse the proposed sublease. The opinion rejected the defendants’ argument that general federal contract principles imposed a different obligation of good faith on this issue.
Summary judgment on ejectment was granted against Epstein, Fisher and the subtenants. Their involvement in this civil possession case does not establish participation in Epstein’s sexual crimes. The remaining financial claims required further proceedings.
The reproduced opinion is headed April 1, 1998 and carries the citation 1998 WL 159055; a published version appears at 27 F. Supp. 2d 404. The docket repeatedly refers to the decision as dated March 31, 1998. These are date labels for the same ruling, not evidence of separate ejectment decisions on successive days.
The Protective Order
A separate February 19, 1998 decision arose from a request for Fisher’s 1996 tax return to verify rental income from subtenants. Judge Chin required production subject to confidentiality, then resolved the parties’ disagreement over how protected material could be used.
The government proposed reserving the ability to share confidential discovery with other agencies for unrelated civil or criminal enforcement. The judge rejected that provision. He reasoned that enforceable confidentiality encouraged disclosure in civil cases, that investigators retained ordinary investigative powers, and that tax information warranted protection.
The resulting restriction prohibited use of covered discovery outside the landlord and tenant litigation without a further court order. It did not provide Epstein with criminal immunity, prevent investigators from obtaining evidence through other lawful means or declare that every document concerning him was secret. Its later relevance was procedural: prosecutors seeking material from this earlier case had to consider the restriction.
Judgment, Eviction and Settlement
The docket’s May 1998 judgment entry, stamped EFTA00187454, records that the government received exclusive possession and the occupants were required to vacate by July 15, 1998. The judgment resolved the possession claims while leaving money damages outstanding.
Entry 59, filed July 27, records service for a forcible eviction on July 16. It also states that the tenants had moved out with their personal belongings. That wording supports the execution history recorded by the court, without inventing a scene of officials physically removing Epstein. He had ceased personal occupancy much earlier.
Fisher appealed. The November 9, 1998 docket entry records a Second Circuit mandate dismissing that appeal. The summary does not explain the dismissal’s reasoning and should not be called an appellate opinion affirming every aspect of the lower court’s analysis.
The same page records a February 3, 1999 settlement stipulation and order. It released the deposited escrow funds and accrued interest to the government and allowed the State Department to keep Epstein’s $12,000 security deposit plus interest. The entry notes receipt of two checks, for $335,526.17 and $19,844.35. These figures appear in the settlement administration record; they should not be presented as a separately adjudicated damages award against Epstein alone.
On March 17, 1999, the main action was dismissed with prejudice against all defendants except Diane Fisher doing business as the Fisher Group, against whom the government’s claims were dismissed without prejudice at its request. The action closed. The companion holdover docket separately records dismissal and closure on March 31, 2000.
These later entries establish a fuller outcome than the opinion alone: recovery of possession, recorded eviction service, an appeal that was dismissed, and financial settlement followed by closure.
The 2007 Search for an Earlier Deposition
Emails released as EFTA01325022 show that a Florida federal prosecutor contacted the former civil case attorney in June 2007 seeking information and an Epstein deposition transcript. The correspondence referred to the need to review the protective order before sharing or using financial discovery.
The continuing chain in EFTA01325025 records an initial retrieval of the court file when the request had intended the United States Attorney’s Office file. The court file did not contain the deposition copy sought. On July 6, the response reported that the closed files had been retrieved and the Epstein deposition could not be located.
This is evidence of an unsuccessful search at that time. It does not establish who had last possessed the transcript, that someone deliberately removed it or that no excerpt existed elsewhere. The distinction became especially important when an excerpt was discussed in open court in 2021.
East 69th Street in Maxwell’s Criminal Trial
On December 17, 2021, Maxwell’s defense sought to introduce records from the tenancy litigation. Counsel wanted to challenge the chronology of the witness who testified under the pseudonym Jane, concerning visits to Epstein’s New York residence during the 1990s.
The defense argued that Epstein’s answers in the civil case and Judge Chin’s opinion supported a January 1996 departure from East 69th Street. Counsel also described a deposition excerpt appended to a government submission, in which Epstein gave an approximate answer about moving from East 69th to East 71st Street around the beginning of 1996.
Prosecutors disputed the proposed inference. They argued that the precise timing of his personal use of another residence had not been material to the earlier landlord and tenant case. Leaving one leased property on a particular date did not establish that he had never lived in the other property before it.
Judge Alison Nathan sustained the objections to the requested judicial notice and to admission of the deposition excerpt under the former testimony exception. The ruling did not determine an alternative move date or establish abuse at East 69th Street.
The transcript is significant for two reasons. It shows how a property chronology was used in a later criminal trial, and it confirms that counsel could identify a deposition excerpt despite the unsuccessful 2007 search. Neither point supports a categorical claim that the complete transcript had been recovered or remained unavailable forever.
Later Use of the Building
David Zwirner’s own exhibition archive documents a Lisa Yuskavage exhibition at 34 East 69th Street in November and December 2018. This provides direct evidence of the address’s later public gallery use, long after the Epstein tenancy litigation.
Artnet reported on July 20, 2026 that the gallery had closed the branch it operated there from 2017. A gallery spokesperson attributed the departure to completion of work at its Chelsea premises. The historical address therefore should not be described as a currently operating Zwirner branch on the strength of older exhibition pages.
These later uses do not establish continuity with Epstein’s household, business or activities. No such connection is implied by the building’s inclusion in this history.
Chronology
| Date | Event | Evidence status |
|---|---|---|
| 1980 | Iranian official departs after diplomatic relations are severed; Iranian ownership continues | Background in the 1998 opinion |
| February 1, 1992 | Epstein’s lease begins | Lease image and amendment |
| August 28, 1992 | Amendment extends the term through January 1997 and sets graduated rent | Signed amendment |
| July 27, 1993 | Interlochen letter uses the residential address | Contemporary correspondence |
| January 1996 | Epstein leaves, according to the civil case account | Complaint and opinion; exact occupancy implications later disputed |
| April 26, 1996 | OFM refuses written permission for the Fisher sublease | Recounted in opinion and default notice |
| May 7, 1996 | Fisher sublease takes effect | Executed agreement |
| June 3, 1996 | OFM issues notice of default | Contemporary letter |
| August 23, 1996 | Termination takes effect | August 7 letter and opinion |
| October 30 and November 4, 1996 | Complaint dated, then filed | Complaint and federal docket |
| March 5, 1997 | Related holdover action removed to federal court | Companion docket |
| February 19, 1998 | Court resolves confidentiality dispute | Memorandum decision |
| March 31 or April 1, 1998 | Ejectment opinion, with different date labels in the docket and reproduced opinion | Opinion and docket |
| May 1998 | Judgment awards exclusive possession to the government | Docket entry 51 |
| July 16, 1998 | Eviction service executed; tenants recorded as having moved out | Docket entry 59 |
| November 9, 1998 | Dismissal of Fisher’s appeal recorded | Docket entry 74 |
| February 3, 1999 | Settlement order releases funds and retains the deposit | Docket entry 75 |
| March 17, 1999 | Main action dismissed and closed | Docket entry 77 |
| March 31, 2000 | Companion action dismissed and closed | Companion docket entry 10 |
| June and July 2007 | Prosecutors search earlier case files for a deposition | Released correspondence |
| December 17, 2021 | Maxwell trial court excludes offered occupancy records and deposition excerpt | Trial transcript |
| July 20, 2026 | Closure of the later Zwirner gallery reported | Artnet reporting with gallery comment |
What the Address Establishes
The strongest records show a residential tenancy, a commercially significant sublease, a government challenge to unauthorized occupancy and a documented civil outcome. They also show why sources must be read at their proper level: the executed amendment supplies the detailed rent schedule, the opinion explains the legal ruling, and the docket extends the history through eviction and settlement.
The record reviewed does not establish Epstein’s ownership of the building, an intelligence relationship arising from the government lease or criminal wrongdoing by every person named as a subtenant. The Maxwell trial dispute further demonstrates why the end of one tenancy cannot by itself settle every question about the use of another home.
Related EpsteinWiki Articles
Sources
- EFTA00597016, Epstein-Data viewer and readable PDF, complaint dated October 30, 1996 and exhibits. Lease: EFTA00597023 to EFTA00597029. Amendment: EFTA00597031 and EFTA00597032. Sublease: EFTA00597034 to EFTA00597046. Default notice: EFTA00597048 and EFTA00597049. Termination letter: EFTA00597052.
- EFTA01249916, Epstein-Data viewer and readable PDF, Interlochen correspondence; July 27, 1993 letter at EFTA01249917, also marked INT 000215.
- EFTA01325008, Epstein-Data viewer and readable PDF, United States v. Epstein, 96 Civ. 8307, 1998 WL 159055, reproduced opinion dated April 1, 1998. Also reproduced as EFTA00223050 and published at 27 F. Supp. 2d 404.
- EFTA01325020, Epstein-Data viewer and readable PDF, United States v. Epstein, 1998 WL 67676, February 19, 1998 confidentiality decision.
- EFTA00187391, Epstein-Data viewer and readable PDF, released legal materials. Main docket: PDF pages 55 to 68, stamped EFTA00187445 to EFTA00187458. Companion docket: pages 69 to 71, stamped EFTA00187459 to EFTA00187461. Dockets retrieved May 22, 2007.
- EFTA01325022, Epstein-Data viewer and readable PDF, June 2007 emails concerning the old civil case and deposition request.
- EFTA01325025, Epstein-Data viewer and readable PDF, continuing correspondence through July 6, 2007, including the unsuccessful file search.
- United States v. Maxwell, Document 763, December 17, 2021 transcript, filed August 10, 2022; transcript pages 2710 to 2719, PDF pages 169 to 178.
- David Zwirner, Lisa Yuskavage: New Paintings, official exhibition archive, November 8 to December 15, 2018.
- Janelle Zara and Andrew Russeth, Goodbye, Upper East Side: David Zwirner Closes 69th Street Gallery, Artnet News, July 20, 2026.