Seen & Heard: Taste of Tribeca Tickets Are on Sale

••• Taste of Tribeca tickets are on sale now (and $10 cheaper if you buy in advance). The event is May 20.

••• Still no activity at the hotel planned for 456 Greenwich. A couple of weeks ago, I heard a rumor that a wealthy neighbor was trying to buy the land (!) in order to protect his/her privacy, but it sounded too far-fetched to pursue.

••• Paris Baguette, a café chain that originated in South Korea (now with more than 3,000 outposts around the world), is opening at 273 Canal. It joins Caffébene (also from South Korea), Dunkin Donuts, and possibly Shake Shack. Thanks to J. for the heads-up.

••• Meanwhile, another store on Broadway is leaving: Illusions of Broadway (always loved that name…) at 321 Broadway. The signs say it’s moving, but the staffer I spoke with couldn’t/wouldn’t say to where.

••• An update on yesterday’s Seen & Heard update about the Five Boro Bike Tour from someone who has been in touch with Bike New York, the event’s organizer.

Here’s what Bike New York sent to me:

1. The bands at the start line south of Church and Franklin Street have been eliminated. The only amplified sound will come from the start line stage

2. The number of speakers and the distance they cover have been greatly reduced. Last year, there were 11 speakers covering 7 blocks, stretching from the start line at Church and Franklin south to Warren. This year, sound coverage has been reduced in half, with 5 speakers covering 3 blocks, stretching from the start line south to Thomas.  There still needs to be some speaker coverage to ensure that any tour information, announcements, or route changes are communicated quickly and effectively, but this year it’ll hopefully be a lot less intrusive to the neighborhood.

3. We’re also implementing changes to better train volunteers, freelancers, and other Tour representatives on dealing with requests or concerns from residents and community members.

••• “Salamander” is shooting in the White/Cortlandt Alley area today. IMDB says it’s a TV movie: “A brilliant but misanthropic engineer recruits a skeptical Homeland Security agent to help him track a mysterious bank robber whose theft of 66 specific safety deposit boxes, belonging to the elite and powerful, sets in motion a series of blackmails that might be linked to a greater conspiracy.”

••• The sidewalk shed has come down off the Cortlandt Alley side of 372 Broadway, which is being converted to condos and repositioned as Six Cortlandt Alley, because the residential entrance is there.

9 Comments

  1. “There still needs to be some speaker coverage to ensure that any tour information, announcements, or route changes are communicated quickly and effectively, but this year it’ll hopefully be a lot less intrusive to the neighborhood.”

    This is rather disingenuous on the part of the event organizers, in my opinion. Hopefully no bands means the speaker volume will be lower this year. However, the worst part of the noise from this event has always been the extreme volume of amplified verbal diarrhea of encouraging blather devoid of any real or necessary event information coming from the announcers. (A large electronic billboard, like the portable ones used to alert drivers at construction sites, etc., would convey announcements and route changes visually without disturbing the entire neighborhood.)

    • The only way to implement change here and have our voices heard is to stage a protest at the event his year. Let’s get organized and bring out as many people as possible. Otherwise, we are kiddding ourselves that anything will change. Simply put, Bike NY could care less about this neighborhood.

      • ….or any neighborhood they disrupt.

        • I’ve been in touch with BikeNYC. They were generally responsive. I had a promise of answers to my concerns to their revised plan. As yet, no answers to the following:
          1. Will there be prerecorded music as in past years?
          2. How big are the speakers and what will the volume be? Fewer speakers but larger/louder would not solve the problem.
          3. Will there be someone on site who residents can connect with if the sound is again disruptive…someone who can be responsive?

          Is there anyone who is interested in joining me in contacting the police who are the ones who issue the permit for the sound?

  2. Re: 456 Greenwich – The neighbor most affected by this construction on a permanent basis will be the buyers at 449 Washington Street. They will lose all those lot line windows on the south wall of 449 Washington Street. If anyone has motive to stop or stall the job at 456 Greenwich Street, people losing their windows would seem a good place to start.

    (The renderings and floorplans of the 456 Greenwich Street hotel posted on this website show no space between 456 Greenwich and 449 Washington, but they do show an open yard between the Washington Street portion of 456 and the rear of its Greenwich Street neighbors to the north.)

    Apparently at least one buyer at 449 Washington Street alleges they were deceived about the permanence of the lot line windows. Said buyer filed suit in November 2016 against the developer/sponsor and the broker (Corcoran) and the attorney (Schweber) who represented the buyer in the transaction upon the broker’s recommendation. (See CARMEN E. MAESTRO FAMILY TRUST vs. 449 WASHINGTON, LLC, Kings Civil Supreme, Index Number: 520552/2016.) They are seeking “compensatory damages in the sum of Three-Million ($3,000,000.00) U.S. Dollars, together with any interest earned thereon.”

    The causes of action include:
    * Breach Of Contract.
    * Breach Of Contract By Defendant Sponsor
    * Fraudulent Inducement By Defendants Sponsor And Corcoran
    * Negligent Misrepresentation By Defendant Corcoran
    * Breach Of Fiduciary Duty By Defendant Corcoran
    * Professional Malpractice By The Defendant Schweber
    * Breach Of Fiduciary Duty By Defendant Schweber
    * Defendant Sponsor Negligently Constructed The Premises
    * Breach Of Implied Housing Merchant Warranty
    * Violation Of GBL Sec. 349 And 350 By Defendants Sponsor & Corcoran
    * Civil Conspiracy Against All The Defendants

  3. The allegations listed in the buyer’s publicly available lawsuit include in part (verbatim):

    […]

    20. That the defendant CORCORAN had knowledge that the defendant SPONSOR misrepresented in the Agreement that the second bedroom did not contain lot line windows and would not be blocked nor obstructed by the construction to the adjacent building was false.

    21. That the defendant CORCORAN knew that the construction of the adjacent building would block the windows and view of the second bedroom in the subject premises.

    22. That the defendant CORCORAN failed to disclose all material facts to the Plaintiff that would have caused the Plaintiff to make an informed decision as to whether or not to purchase the subject premises.

    23. That the defendant CORCORAN failed to disclose to the Plaintiff that the construction of the adjoining building would permanently obstruct the windows and block the views in the second bedroom as delineated in the Agreement.

    24. That the Plaintiff asked the defendant CORCORAN whether the windows in the second bedroom would be blocked or obstructed by the adjacent building being constructed next door.

    25. Despite knowing that the adjacent building next door would obstruct views and block the windows in the second bedroom, the defendant CORCORAN misinformed the Plaintiff that the construction of the adjacent building would not affect the second bedroom windows nor block her views or three exposures.

    26. That the defendant SPONSOR falsely misrepresented in the Agreement that the subject premises was a 2 bedroom, 2 bath apartment, with 3 exposures when in fact the subject premises was only a one (1) bedroom apartment with 2 exposures.

    27. That the defendant SPONSOR falsely misrepresented in the Agreement that the windows in the 2nd bedroom/library were permanent and not Lot Line Windows, as Lot Line Windows would have to be removed and replaced with a brick wall when the adjacent building completes construction.

    28. That as the Plaintiff was from out-of-state, the Plaintiff asked the defendant CORCORAN for a recommendation for an attorney who could represent her with respect to the purchase of the subject premises.-

    29. The defendant CORCORAN recommended that the Plaintiff retain the defendant LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT SCHWEBER, P.C. (hereinafter referred to as “SCHWEBER”)

    30. Due to the defendant CORCORAN’s recommendation, the Plaintiff retained the co-defendant, SCHWEBER, to represent her with respect to the purchase of the subject premises.

    31. That the Defendant SCHWEBER was retained by the Plaintiff to represent her in the negotiation, drafting and execution of the Agreement and to assist her in the closing of title of the Unit.

    32. That due to the fact that the defendant SCHWEBER didn’t want to upset his referral source or lose future referrals from the defendant CORCORAN, the defendant SCHWEBER was conflicted and failed to act with reasonable care or in the best interests of the Plaintiff, whom he had a fiduciary relationship with.

    33. That prior to executing the Agreement, the Plaintiff was very concerned of the possibility that the windows in the second bedroom would be blocked and her views obstructed by the construction of the adjacent building.

    34. That due to her concerns, the Plaintiff asked her attorney, Defendant SCHWEBER, whether there was any possibility that the adjacent building being constructed next door would block and obstruct the windows in the second bedroom of the subject premises.

    35. That the Defendant SCHWEBER responded to the Plaintiff’s inquiry and negligently advised the Plaintiff that her second bedroom windows would not be blocked nor obstructed as New York City Building Codes requires that the adjacent building have a “minimum of 30 foot setbacks.”

    36. That the defendant CORCORAN pressured and coerced the Plaintiff to quickly sign the Agreement by falsely claiming that if she did not sign the Agreement quickly, the defendant SPONSOR would send out a Purchase Agreement to another Buyer.

    37. That due to the misrepresentations and negligent and wrongful acts of the defendants, the Plaintiff signed the Agreement.

    38. On or about May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff, CARMEN e MAESTRO TRUST, entered into a Purchase Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”), which also incorporates the terms of the Offering Plan, as Amended, to purchase a residential condominium from the defendant SPONSOR whereby the SPONSOR agreed to sell and convey, and the Plaintiff agreed to purchase, a residential condominium unit designated as Unit 3A at 449 Washington Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”), together with an undivided interest in the General Common Elements of the Condominium appurtenant thereto, in the Condominium Offering Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” or “Contract”).

    39. That pursuant to the Agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendant SPONSOR agreed to sell the Unit for Two Million Nine-Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand ($2,975,000.00) U.S. Dollars (hereinafter referred to as the “Purchase Price”).

    […]

    70. That the defendant SPONSOR breached the Agreement by misrepresenting the Unit as a two (2) bedroom bathroom apartment when it was in fact a one (1) bedroom apartment.

    71. That the defendant SPONSOR breached the Agreement by misrepresenting the windows in the second bedroom of the Agreement as not being Lot Line Windows.

    72. That the defendant SPONSOR breached the Agreement by misrepresenting that the second bedroom windows would not be blocked nor required to be removed and replaced with a brick wall in the event the adjacent building next door is constructed.

    […]

    85. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN represented that the subject premises was a legal two bedroom, two bathroom apartment.

    86. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN represented that the second bedroom did not contain Lot Line Windows.

    87. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN represented that the adjacent building would never obstruct the sunlight nor block the views from the second bedroom in the subject premises.

    88. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN represented that the adjacent building would be offset back from the Plaintiff’s Unit

    89. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN represented that the second bedroom windows would never have to be removed and replaced with a brick wall.

    90. That these representations by the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN were material to the Agreement and formed the basis for the Plaintiff entering into said Agreement.

    91. That these material representations made by the defendants were false.

    92. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN knew these representations were false.

    93. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN knew that the subject premises was actually a one (1) bedroom apartment.

    94. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN knew that the second bedroom contained Lot Line Windows.

    95. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN knew that the adjacent building when built would obstruct the sunlight and block any views from the second bedroom in the subject premises.

    96. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN knew that the adjacent building when built would require the Plaintiff to remove the windows in the second bedroom and replace the windows with a brick wall.

    97. That the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN knew that the Plaintiff would be relying on these misrepresentations when made in making her decision to purchase the subject premises.

    98. That the Plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentations made by the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN when she closed title to the subject premises.

    99. That had the defendants SPONSOR and CORCORAN not made these misrepresentations and instead acted in good faith and made truthful disclosures, the Plaintiff would not have entered into the Agreement nor closed title to the Unit.

    100. That a building is being constructed adjacent to the Plaintiff’s Unit which will be taller than the subject property.

    101. That once fully constructed, the building will obstruct the second bedroom windows and block the Plaintiff’s views from that room.

    102. That once the building is fully constructed, the Plaintiff will be compelled to remove the windows in the second bedroom and replace the windows with a brick wall.

    103. That the Plaintiff has been harmed as she will now be required to remove the windows in the second bedroom and replace said windows with a brick wall.

    104. That the second bedroom will be without any windows or natural sunlight.

  4. The only guaranteed view in NYC is one of a brick wall.

  5. The plaintiff is none other than Hurt Locker and Zero Dark director:

    http://ny.curbed.com/2017/1/18/14310872/kathryn-bigelow-nyc-apartment-for-sale

Comment: