311 tracks calls for film shoot complaints and sends them along; there is a way that if a neighborhood has had many and they are tired - the film office can call a temporary moratorium...that being said they only know if you file 311 complaints and they claimed a few months ago to not have many from downtown... — TAK on Seen & Heard: Six Shoots This Week

i had a TERRIBLE experience in December with a night time film shoot that took over my street and the entire square block. At 10pm the generator truck parked right beneath my bedroom window kept roaring until after 11pm. Location manager was nowhere to be found. a "crew member" offered to baffle the sound in my apartment but that never happened. I am NOT opposed to Film shoots in our neighborhood, but i AM opposed to the disregard of residents and businesses rights and blatant arrogance of the much of the crew. — MADELINE LANCIANI on Seen & Heard: Six Shoots This Week

I'm slowly weaning myself off — Connie Connors on Seen & Heard: Brooklyn Flea Might Not Return

Agree. 35 years in Tribeca and now in Crown Heights. — Connie Connors on Seen & Heard: Brooklyn Flea Might Not Return

Harrison St. is Alton Lane...a men's clothing store that also as an outpost in Flatiron. — Andy on Nine Mystery Storefronts

A "national yoga company" is moving in to 25 Hudson. — Elizabeth on Nine Mystery Storefronts

And what about the other seven? Just kidding. Thanks for these—I’ve found that DOB paperwork rarely offers such specifics. — Erik Torkells on Nine Mystery Storefronts

9 White St, per POC1 for DOB job 123278657: "Owner: chris@alesortuzar.com" From alesortuzar.com: "Ales Ortuzar is a private art dealership specializing in Modern, Post-War and Contemporary works of art. We provide our clients with art historical expertise and extensive market knowledge." — James on Nine Mystery Storefronts

25 Hudson: DOB Job 123198066, Document 1: "RENOVATION AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING REATIL (sic) TO DANCE STUDIO ON FIRST FLOOR. [...]" — James on Nine Mystery Storefronts

Don't forget the benefits to the (big-campaign- contributing) construction unions! — James on In the News: Setback for 50 Murray Rent Stabilization

That is an amazing decision! I've been saying for years that the number of rent stabilized units is a farce because the initial rent is always set too high. But to see that the legislature contemplated the fact that no apartments would qualify as rent stabilized... so brilliant politically! They appeased tenants by calling buildings rent stabilized, they appeased landlords because no buildings actually are. — Ellen2 on In the News: Setback for 50 Murray Rent Stabilization

"There’s one elevator and if she’s coming or going the bodyguards won’t let anyone get in if they’re taking her up or down, or they’ll hold the elevator at the top floor for 30 mins waiting for her" They even won't allow other residents into the elevator? Unless this is a private elevator, that seems extremely rude. I'm surprised other residents would tolerate this. — Marcus on In the News: Is This Why Taylor Swift Bought the Townhouse Next Door?

Last month Tribeca Trust filed their notice of appeal and their pre-argument statement listing the grounds for seeking reversal of the unfavorable decision in their suit against LPC. PDF of pre-argument statement here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=OAd5m1nHtsZvSmZZ/MdO8A==&system=prod — James on Seen & Heard: Historic District Expansion Rebuffed

To respond and clarify: 1. Nothing the REBNY lawyer said was opinion, but either facts or probabilities. What the tenants' lawyer said is opinion at best: "It needs a higher court decision to give clarity, certainty, and finality." A higher court decision is not needed here as a matter of law. It is also in large part wishful thinking. The Court of Appeals "could" issue a ruling in this matter, but only if it is properly before them. It will not be before the Court of Appeals as of right, nor is it ever likely to be before the Court of Appeals. When lower courts within *a single department* of the Appellate Division are split, as we have here, that Appellate Division can resolve the split itself for that department, and with finality where the law in question only applies within a single department. The Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) resolves conflicting decisions when the conflict is across *different departments* of the Appellate Division. That is not the case here. 2. Despite what "we know," there isn't "always a higher court," or at least access to it. In addition to the above, these tenants lost a unanimous decision and thus cannot appeal to the "higher court" as of right. They must obtain permission ("leave") to appeal further, either from the very same AD court that just ruled unanimously against the tenants or from the Court of Appeals itself. Is the AD likely to give the tenants a second chance, possibly to have the Court of Appeals overrule what the AD just decided regarding a law affecting only its department? Probably not, but there's always a chance. (That said, I bet the tenants' lawyer would happily charge his clients to write and file a motion to reargue and/or seek leave to appeal. It delays having to explain to the tenants why they may have to pay the landlord's legal fees in this matter.) The Court of Appeals takes only certain cases on, usually if there are constitutional questions, novel or unique issues of law, issues of public importance, a ruling that fails to follow a Court of Appeals precedent, conflicting rulings among the Appellate Divisions, issues that may help to explain or define a recent Court of Appeals ruling, an issue that may draw an important distinction from a Court of Appeals ruling, a recent statute that needs to be interpreted, new or emerging legal issues, or new or emerging technologies. 421-g dates back to 1995 and is hardly a recent statute. Where is the unique or vital or constitutional issue of law or issue affecting a broad population in this decision that needs interpretation by the Court of Appeals? I guess we will see. 3. Why would the landlord want to evict tenants paying market-rate rent? The landlord never cross-moved to eject these tenants or asserted any violations of the lease. As I understand it, both sides sought a declaratory judgement as to whose interpretation of the enforceability of the lease as written was correct. Landlords do not make money from empty spaces, whether apartments or retail stores, despite what some would have you believe. (One plaintiff's lease rent cited in the summons and complaint was for $10,295. monthly.) More to the point, why would this decision empower the landlord to evict (or eject, here in Supreme Court) a paying, market-rate tenant with an in-force lease? At most they may decide not to renew leases on apartments deemed out from under rent stabilization and/or terminate month-to-month tendencies. That is not an eviction. — James on In the News: Setback for 50 Murray Rent Stabilization

Thanks James, for your unwavering clarity derived from the REBNY lawyer. If this is the law of the land, and the landlords believed so, they would have moved to evict the tenants. They know, as we do, that there is always a higher court. — mruptight on In the News: Setback for 50 Murray Rent Stabilization

Touché in the beanie — Rohin on Seen & Heard: Brooklyn Flea Might Not Return

Decision here: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_00336.htm — James on In the News: Setback for 50 Murray Rent Stabilization

When Peter Jackson bought the two PHs initially he had hoped to combine them. After years of back-and-forth with the board he gave up trying and just renovated them as the existing divided units. He only stayed in the apartments a few times after the renovations. I think for Taylor it was advantageous because she could have her own apt (7000 sq feet) and the bodyguards live in the other apt next to her (close to 4000 sq feet) TS moving into the building tremendously impacted the residents...note all the sales since she moved in (and not for huge profits for some) There's one elevator and if she's coming or going the bodyguards won't let anyone get in if they're taking her up or down, or they'll hold the elevator at the top floor for 30 mins waiting for her. I know this sounds like a small thing..but not fun when it's happened to you over-and-over. She's been renovating for over a year and yes, stalkers/fans have gotten into the building, but it's because with all the construction people coming and going there's no one to monitor who's with them or a kook...Taylor only employs an off duty NYPD officer to sit in the lobby when SHE'S there. As far as her 'profile' - she definitely liked the attention she received from photographers and fans. Ashley Olson lived on the 3rd floor for over a year and no one knew (her bodyguard would take her up and down in the elevator as well, but never tried to stop anyone from getting into the elevator) Ashley bailed from the rental as soon as she found out TS had bought. Taylor should just buy that PH available at Sterling Mason. That place i like fort knox with all the security, multiple entrances and garage/motor court. — Andy on In the News: Is This Why Taylor Swift Bought the Townhouse Next Door?

If you read the whole article, you see the tenant's attorney is disingenuous. This case is not going to the Court of Appeals. Let's see if the landlord as the prevailing party moves to recover their attorney's fees from the tenants under the applicable provision of their leases. From the bottom of the article - Reason one: "[T] he Court of Appeals rarely hears cases that don’t feature split decisions between two different Appellate Division courts, which — in the case of 421-g — could never happen because of the geographically narrow reach of the law, which only applies to Lower Manhattan, according to lawyer Louise Barracks, who represented the Real Estate Board of New York, also a party to the 50 Murray St. case." Reason two: an appellant needs special Court permission to appeal a unanimous (5-0) AD decision to the Court of Appeals (as opposed to a narrow 3-2 defeat). "If that’s the case, and the Court of Appeals declined to take up the case, the Appellate Division’s unanimous decision favoring landlords is the whole ball game, and the end of tenants’ hopes of lower rents and reparations, according to Barracks." Reason three: this decision is as of now binding on all the other similar cases. “'Unless this goes up to the Court of Appeals, this is the law of the land in New York,' she said. 'The highest court will have opined on it, and there’s no one else who can decide to the contrary.'” — James on In the News: Setback for 50 Murray Rent Stabilization

Yet you’re still reading the Citizen... — Ernie on Seen & Heard: Brooklyn Flea Might Not Return

You're not wrong... we moved from Tribeca to DUMBO about 6 years ago. — Jeff on Seen & Heard: Brooklyn Flea Might Not Return

Brooklyn’s where it’s at, losers. Tribeca lost its soul at least five years ago. — Andy C on Seen & Heard: Brooklyn Flea Might Not Return

... especially if one is looking for the double-entendre. — James on Seen & Heard: Six Shoots This Week

This building is an insult to Canal Street. One continuous facade running 100 feet that replaces what had been 5 discrete buildings is totally out of context and contrary to one of only two blocks of Canal Street that has landmarks protection on both sides — Don Thomas on Red Terra Cotta Facade Proposed for Canal Street

We timed the delivery of the T-Shirts for right after the holiday season. They'll make a great Valentines Day gift ... — Matt on Seen & Heard: Six Shoots This Week