CASES OF INTEREST:
-
Carnegie Hall Corporation - Studio Towers Redevelopment: Represented the Carnegie Hall Corporation as special counsel in connection with the Studio Towers Renovation Project. The project will refurbish Carnegie Hall's backstage areas and create a new Education Wing within existing space of the landmark building as well as an adjacent Roof Terrace. The Education Wing will house Carnegie Hall's education and community programs that currently engage more than 300,000 people around the world annually, including tens of thousands of New York City public school students. In order to complete the Project, we successfully represented Carnegie Hall in various courts to recover possession of studio spaces occupied by commercial tenants. In those cases, the courts upheld Carnegie Hall's legal authority to reconfigure the property under its ground lease with the City. We then successfully pursued an application at the State DHCR, which requested permission to relocate the residential rent controlled tenants. The Studio Towers Renovation Project will fully support Carnegie Hall's non-profit mission-making great music accessible to as many people as possible-helping to ensure that Carnegie Hall remains the premier international destination for the world's greatest artists in the 21st century and beyond.
(R&E Team: Gary Rosenberg, Nicholas Kamillatos and Howard Kingsley, for plaintiff) -
S&P Associates of New York LLC v. Vera Salnikova and Ronald Stone: R&E successfully obtained a judgment of possession for a 2,777 square foot, five bedroom, four bathroom apartment with panoramic views of Central Park and the Time Warner Center. The building in which the apartment was located was converted to condominium ownership pursuant to a "non-eviction" offering plan. The tenant chose not to purchase her apartment at the "insider price" during the exclusive purchase period and was therefore offered a lease containing a market rent, pursuant to General Business Law 352-eeee(2)(c)(iv) (the "Martin Act"). The rental rate in the lease offered by the Sponsor increased from $8,050 to $15,500 per month. When the tenant refused to execute the lease, the Sponsor commenced eviction proceedings. The central issue in the proceeding was whether the monthly rent set by the Sponsor constituted an unconscionable rent under the Martin Act. The Court concluded that the Sponsor properly established the rent based upon the rents of comparable apartments in the building and that the tenant had not been subjected to an "unconscionable increase beyond ordinary rentals" in violation of the Martin Act. The Court also awarded the Sponsor a money judgment for use and occupancy in the amount of $139,840 and attorneys' fees.
(Civil Court, New York - Decided: 10/17/2011)
(R&E Team: Deborah Riegel and Brett B. Theis, for petitioner) -
In re Metropolitan Transit Authority (Fulton Street Transit Center): Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's condemnation award in favor of our client of over $35 million, and also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and expenses based on fact that the condemnation award was so far in excess of the MTA's initial offer of just compensation.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York - Decided: 7/21/11)
(R&E Team: Warren A. Estis, Michael E. Feinstein, and Jeffrey Turkel, for DLR Properties, LLC, respondent) - Tennant v. Manhattan Skyline Management Corp.: Order declaring that no illusory prime tenancy existed based upon the fact that they entered into possession of the apartment as subtenants after the legal monthly rent exceeded $2000 and Plaintiffs were not entitled to any greater rights than they would have had if they entered into a lease after the tenant vacated.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York - Decided: 6/16/2011)
(R&E Team: Deborah Riegel and Alexander Lycoyannis, for respondents)
- Modern Art Services, Ltd v. OCA Long Island City, LLC: In Modern Art, Rosenberg & Estis represented a commercial landlord of a building in Long Island City. After the landlord exercised its option to terminate the lease, the tenant sued the landlord, alleging breach of the warranty of habitability and nuisance. At a deposition, the tenant's principal admitted that the tenant had suffered no actual damages, but was seeking over one million dollars in compensation based on the tenant's alleged "aggravation." The landlord moved for summary judgment based on the principal's admission. Supreme Court denied the motion, ruling that if the principal's allegations as to the landlord's conduct were true, damages could be "inferred," despite the principal's statement that tenant had not suffered damages. On appeal, the Appellate Division Second Department reversed, holding that in response to the landlord's motion for summary judgment, the tenant was obligated to put forth affirmative proof of actual damages. Because the tenant failed to do so, Supreme Court granted the landlord summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
(Supreme Court, Queens County - Decided: 5/17/11)
(R&E Team: Jeffrey Turkel, Frederick E. Park, and Dani Schwartz, for appellant)
- Estate of Spitz v. Pokoik : The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the breach of fiduciary duty claims arising out of the co-tenant's sale of an apartment to his son, allegedly at below-market price, did not fall within the scope of earlier release.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York - Decided: 4/14/11)
(R&E Attorney: Norman Flitt, for respondent-appellant)
- Casado v. Markus: In Casado v. Markus, various tenants challenged the legality of Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) Orders 40 and 41, which required certain rent stabilized tenants renewing their leases to pay an additional increase where their rents were below $1,000 per month. The tenants alleged that the RGB did not have the authority to impose this surcharge, which they described as a "tax on the poor." The Supreme Court and the Appellate Division agreed, invalidating the surcharge. The matter went to the Court of Appeals, wherein Rosenberg & Estis represented amici curiae Rent Stabilization Association (RSA) and Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP). The Court of Appeals, reversing, held that the Rent Stabilization Law did not prohibit the RGB from making "common sense distinctions" between discrete classes of apartments, as the RGB had been doing for 40 years. The Court reinstated the surcharges, authorizing landlords throughout New York City to collect millions of dollars in back surcharges.
(Court of Appeals of New York - Decided: 3/24/2011)
(R&E Team: Jeffrey Turkel and Alexander Lycoyannis, for Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc. and another, amici curiae)
- 184 Joralemon LLC v. Brooklyn Law School: Supreme Court held that a contract executed only by Plaintiff did not create a binding agreement to sell real property where Defendant never signed the contract and subsequently entered into a contract with another party. The defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the motion to cancel the notice of pendency is granted.
(Supreme Court, Kings County, New York - Decided: 3/28/11)
(R&E Team: Deborah Riegel and Brett Theis for defendant)
- TAG 380, LLC, v. ComMet 380, Inc.: Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's judgment against our client for reimbursement of insurance premium allegedly paid by the Defendant, finding that the judgment was not supported by sufficient evidence in the trial record.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York - Decided: 3/31/2011)
(R&E Team: Warren A. Estis, Michael E. Feinstein, and Jeffrey Turkel, for appellant)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Rocar Realty Northeast, Inc.: Our client, JPMorgan Chase Bank, by the affirmed judgment, recovered a double payment for two months rent and use and occupancy that Chase made to preserve its sublease during a dispute between Chase's sub-landlord (Rocar) and the prime landlord, Jefferson. After losing its bid for a refund against Rocar as a result of a prior appellate court order, Chase turned defeat into victory by suing Jefferson for a refund on an unjust enrichment theory. Equity prevailed in Supreme Court and the Appellate Division with Chase recouping its overpayment from Jefferson, with interest.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York - Decided: 1/4/2011)
(R&E Attorney: Norman Flitt, for respondent-appellant)
RECENT TRANSACTIONS/SETTLEMENTS:
- 220 CPS "Save Our Homes" Assn. v. DHCR: Appellate Division held that DHCR need not conduct a SEQRA review in connection with owner's application to recover rent stabilized tenants' apartments, based on the owner's intention to demolish the building.
(R&E Team: Gary M. Rosenberg, Luise A. Barrack, Patti Stone, Neil Dwork, and Alexander Lycoyannis)
-
World Trade Center: Represented The Durst Organization in connection with its negotiations with The Port Authority concerning a joint venture with regard to One World Trade Center.
(R&E Team: Gary M. Rosenberg, Richard L. Sussman, Michael E. Lefkowitz, Robert M. Kessler, William Byers, Jr., Ari Aranda, Janna Rosenberg, and Jolie E. Meer) - Chelsea Development: Represented The Brodsky Organization in connection with a number of transactions with The General Theological Seminary, including the acquisition, development and financing of The Enclave Condominium located at 177 Ninth Avenue New York, New York, as well as certain other buildings and development sites owned by The General Theological Seminary.
(R&E Team: Richard L. Sussman, Eric S. Orenstein, and Ari Aranda)
- East 79th Street/East 118th Street: Represented The Brodsky Organization in connection with complicated, tri-party transaction involving the construction by The Brodsky Organization of a new facility for CUNY (Hunter School of Social Work) on East 118th Street and CUNY's vacancy of its existing school facility on East 79th Street. Upon vacancy, the existing school facility on East 79th Street will be demolished and a luxury condominium building will be erected.
(R&E Team: Richard L. Sussman, Eric S. Orenstein, and Ari Aranda)
