Elisa, take a chill pill. — James Fairchild on In the News: Tetsu Opening Forecast

Do I think sexual assault, in itself, is funny? Of course not. But I do think that humor can be found in even the most dire situations. For instance, I believe that our country is going to hell in a handbasket, and many people will be seriously, adversely affected by the current administration's efforts. As terrifying and depressing as the situation is, however, it still has moments that are quite funny. So, yes, I think referring to breasts as "puppies" is funny, even in this context. (Obviously, the behavior itself is reprehensible.) In this instance, I actually asked myself: If I had an employer who called my manhood a weasel—no, a panther—I would be offended and outraged and litigious. But I'd also think it was pretty funny. Maybe it's a coping mechanism. As for "grabbing the pole," are you seeing it as a penis reference? That eludes me. I was trying to make a germaphobe joke. — Erik Torkells on In the News: Tetsu Opening Forecast

Doesn't it occur to you how inappropriate it is that in TWO entries which describe sexual assaults, you joke about the term "puppies?" And "Probably afraid to grab the pole?" Do you think this sexual assault is funny? — elisa on In the News: Tetsu Opening Forecast

....or any neighborhood they disrupt. — Maryann on Seen & Heard: Taste of Tribeca Tickets Are on Sale

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. — James on Seen & Heard: Taste of Tribeca Tickets Are on Sale

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 — James on Seen & Heard: Taste of Tribeca Tickets Are on Sale

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. — Jim on Seen & Heard: Taste of Tribeca Tickets Are on Sale

Amazing to see how dangerous Battery Park is becoming, especially for the young people. Is there any police protection around here? Every other day some teen is getting mugged. When will this community start protecting its own? — Alred on In the News: Dispute Over the Roc Space

"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.) — James on Seen & Heard: Taste of Tribeca Tickets Are on Sale

Missed you! — Sal on Nosy Neighbor: How Do These Metal Braces Work?

She sells, sea shells by the C seaport? :) Welcome back Erik... missed your updates! — Rohin on In the News: Dispute Over the Roc Space

Welcome back! I missed you! — Janet on In the News: Dispute Over the Roc Space

Owner/Lease Holder Information Last Name SLAVIN First Name DAVID Middle Initial Business Name KINDERCARE EDUCATION Business Phone 5038721733 Business Fax Business Address 650 N.E. HOLLADAY STREET, SUITE 1400 Mobile Phone City PORTLAND State OR Zip 97232 E Mail DSLAVIN@KC-EDUCATION.COM — James on Seen & Heard: Frankly Wines Has a New Owner

Demo permit issued. Proposed construction still disapproved. NYC Department of Buildings Document Overview Page: 0 of 1 Premises: 309 GREENWICH STREET MANHATTAN Job No: 123025975 BIN: 1075706 Block: 140 Lot: 7502 Num. of Documents: 1 Job Type: A2 - ALTERATION TYPE 2 DOC NO WORK TYPE(S) / STATUS / JOB DESCRIPTION 01 FILING FOR THE INTERIOR DEMOLITIONS OF PARTITIONS, FLOORS, WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FINISHES AS PER PLANS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. NO CHANGE TO USE, EGRESS, OR OCCUPANCY. Status: R - PERMIT ISSUED - ENTIRE JOB/WORK Status Date: 02/23/2017 NYC Department of Buildings Document Overview Page: 0 of 1 Premises: 309 GREENWICH STREET MANHATTAN Job No: 123034670 BIN: 1075706 Block: 140 Lot: 7502 Num. of Documents: 1 Job Type: A2 - ALTERATION TYPE 2 DOC NO WORK TYPE(S) / STATUS / JOB DESCRIPTION 01 FILING FOR THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN THE DAYCARE AS PER PLANS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. Status: J - PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED Status Date: 03/03/2017 NYC Department of Buildings Document Overview Page: 1 of 1 Premises: 309 GREENWICH STREET MANHATTAN Job No: 123031389 BIN: 1075706 Block: 140 Lot: 7502 Num. of Documents: 2 Job Type: A1 - ALTERATION TYPE 1 DOC NO WORK TYPE(S) / STATUS / JOB DESCRIPTION 01 FILING FOR AN INTERIOR TENANT BUILD OUT OF A DAYCARE FACILITY ON THE CELLAR AND FIRST FLOOR OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AS PER PLANS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. Status: J - PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED Status Date: 03/16/2017 Plans Page Count: Not Provided Directive 14: N Applicant Name: SCHMITZ KURT Pre-Filing Date: 02/27/2017 TYPE STATUS DATE STATUS A1 - ALTERATION TYPE 1 02/27/2017 J: PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED OT - GEN. CONSTR. 03/16/2017 J: PLAN EXAM - DISAPPROVED 02 FILING FOR MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILD OUT OF A DAYCARE AS PER PLANS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. Status: A - PRE-FILING Status Date: 02/27/2017 — James on Seen & Heard: Frankly Wines Has a New Owner

https://tribecacitizen.wpengine.com/2016/12/08/seen-heard-former-nysc-space-to-be-a-preschool/ — James on The Tribeca Citizen Shopping Guide

Can someone please help me figure out what is going to be at the old NYSC on Reade Street and Greenwich. I saw workers in there, with lights on, looking as if they were working on something! — Reade it on The Tribeca Citizen Shopping Guide

Any updates on SLT opening? — Christina on Seen & Heard: SLT Says It’s Opening Soon

I always assumed the painted walls go 112 Reade were advertising from a former era. But then I heard that they were put there more recently for a movie location shot. This perhaps makes sense since neither painted sign has the name of a manufacturer or company. Does anyone know the history of them? — George Bacon on More History of Tribeca Buildings

Wow, this is great work. Thank you, Erik! — McGee on The Tribeca Citizen Shopping Guide

light has a life of its own (very brief reflections & shadows, have 2 B observant & quick) — robert janz on Reflections on the City (Vol. 9)

Store for rent sign up now. — NorthernTribeca on Agatha Ruiz de la Prada Has Closed

Nice article recently online at nytimes.com: "Where Fountain Pens Are Saved and Sold" The Fountain Pen Hospital represents a bygone idea in an age of instant communication, but the store in Lower Manhattan attracts people from across New York City. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/nyregion/fountain-pen-hospital-manhattan.html — James on Spotlight: Fountain Pen Hospital

https://tribecacitizen.wpengine.com/2016/12/08/seen-heard-former-nysc-space-to-be-a-preschool/ — James on The Tribeca Citizen Shopping Guide

I heard through a Mommy group that the Book Nook (nursery/preschool) in UWS is opening a new location in Tribeca. — TribecaMom on The Tribeca Citizen Shopping Guide

Super Linda — CJ on Where in Tribeca…?