In the News: Rent-Stabilized Tenant Penalized for Subletting

••• “A Manhattan judge has ordered an artist booted from her $1,500-a-month Tribeca loft and is making her pay a record-setting $185,000 fine for illegally renting it out on Airbnb. Eileen Hickey, 72 […] was first sued by the owner of 460 Greenwich St. in 2014 over illegal sublets in her rent-stabilized home of 43 years. Landlord Robert Moskowitz claimed Hickey, whose apartment spans the entire fourth floor, had raked in some $4,500 a month via her Airbnb guests from Spain, California and New Orleans. Meanwhile, she admittedly owns an East Village condo—but claims to use it as an office. Moskowitz caught Hickey red-handed when a Spanish sublet tenant hung a banner from the fire escape of the 1,400-square-foot unit to welcome friends.” All newsworthy, but why did the New York Post think it warranted the front page?

••• “Following a court defeat in January, tenants of 50 Murray St. have decided to take their case to the state Court of Appeals to argue that building owners profiting from the 421-g tax program must continue offering the rent-regulated leases the law requires. Conflicting lower court rulings have left open the question of whether leases in 421-g buildings are subject to so-called ‘luxury deregulation,’ so a high court determination in the 50 Murray St. case will have sweeping consequences for residents and developers in Lower Manhattan—and could force landlords to slash rents for thousands of Downtowners, according to the tenants’ lawyer.” —Downtown Express

••• The history of 77 White, best known for being the site of the Mudd Club. —Daytonian in Manhattan

•••”A new data visualization tool shows that Lower Manhattan experiences the second biggest differential between day and night populations of any neighborhood in Manhattan —and, by extension, of any location in America.” —Broadsheet

••• “City wants to move Charging Bull to NYSE along with Fearless Girl, but artist stands ground. […] ‘The city has no right to unilaterally move Charging Bull,’ said Norman Siegel, an attorney representing artist Arturo Di Modica. ‘They’re ignoring the rights of Arturo as an artist, and specifically it would be a violation of the copyright law and the Visual Arts Rights Act.'” —Downtown Express

Comment: