In the News: Setback for Rent-Regulated Tenants

••• “Even a heavy downpour could not dampen the mood at the 24th annual Taste of Tribeca. As foodies took shelter beneath a sea of umbrellas and loading dock canopies, organizers on Saturday marveled at both the surprisingly healthy attendance and the buoyant feeling of the event.” (Photo of Tetsu’s crew courtesy Taste of Tribeca.) —Tribeca Trib

••• Bad news for tenants at 50 Murray: “A panel of judges delivered a victory for Lower Manhattan landlords Thursday, ruling that rent-regulated apartments that received a particular tax break can be converted to market-rate once rents reach a certain threshold.” —Crain’s

••• A Q&A with Buckle My Shoe’s founder Linda Ensko. —Broadsheet

••• “After 25 years at The Park Preschool, [Emmaline] Thomas-Nelson, or Miss Emmaline as she is respectfully called, is retiring. And so it was on a recent May evening that a roomful of past and current school parents as well as now-grown former students were on hand for a surprise showing of appreciation, and a chance to say farewell.” —Tribeca Trib

••• “Convene, a flexible-workspace and meeting-space provider, has signed a lease deal for its largest location, a 93,000-square-foot space in lower Manhattan’s One Liberty Plaza. Executives have their sights on more and bigger locations. ‘Within the next 24 months, we really want to position ourselves as the No. 2 brand,’ said Ryan Simonetti, Convene’s co-founder and chief executive. […] Brookfield Property Partners , which owns One Liberty Plaza with Blackstone Group LP […] is an investor in Convene.” —Wall Street Journal

••• “On March 15, [Casey] Neistat says he got a text message from two peers back at 368 who said that a man had entered—he ‘probably’ sneaked in behind somebody else who was supposed to be there—without permission and would not leave. […] Since the incident, fans have reached out to Neistat claiming to know the intruder and calling him ‘unstable,’ the Verge reports. No arrest was made, and Neistat says that he hopes to build a ‘retail space’ at his office in New York that would allow people to come and meet him during regular hours.” —Select All


1 Comment

  1. The Appellate Court was essentially bound here by its prior decision in Kuzmuch v 50 Murray. We’ll see how it goes at the Court of Appeals:

    William T. West, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants,
    B.C.R.E – 90 West Street, LLC, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, Lee Rosen, Defendant.

    Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

    Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph LLP, New York (Serge Joseph of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

    Amended order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2018, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant B.C.R.E. 90 West Street, LLC’s motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiffs’ apartments are deregulated and not subject to rent stabilization, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiffs’ leases are subject to rent stabilization, and so declared, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and it is declared that plaintiffs’ apartments were properly deregulated.

    For the reasons stated in Kuzmich v 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC (157 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2018]), buildings receiving tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 421-g are subject to the luxury vacancy decontrol provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-504.2(a).

    The fact that the subject building additionally received low-interest mortgage financing from the New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC) does not bar application of this luxury decontrol scheme. Defendant owner’s regulatory agreement with HDC merely requires that all units in the building be “subject to Rent Stabilization . . . to the extent Rent Stabilization applies to such Units” (emphasis added). The language of Private Housing Finance Law § 654-d(18) is substantially similar to that of Real Property Take Law § 421-g and should be interpreted consistently therewith.


    ENTERED: MAY 17, 2018