Image 20 is 79 Laight Street, south side of Laight west of Washington — James on Tribeca Then and Now: The Unknowns (Part 2)

Image 13 is 59 Murray Street, New York Dolls. — James on Tribeca Then and Now: The Unknowns (Part 2)

Image 18 is south side of Laight east of Washington. 401 Washington aka 73 Laight aka Sterling Mason. — James on Tribeca Then and Now: The Unknowns (Part 2)

Image 22 is 39 Greene Street. — James on Tribeca Then and Now: The Unknowns (Part 2)

Images 15-17 are probably the building 461-469 Greenwich Street, with 16 on the corner at Desbrosses St. — James on Tribeca Then and Now: The Unknowns (Part 2)

regardless of the spellin their food is fantastic. Tribeca has a ton of amazing ittalian like Petraca, Terra, etc but this place is the best food in the city for italian, hands down imo....and the sangria is tasty as well....Edwaurdo kills it there. — adam glassman on Valentine No. 68

Just took a look at the actual photos... With photos like that, no wonder the critic might mock the choice of TriBeCa. The photos show nothing of what makes the neighborhood visually interesting: the architecture. These just look like generic streetscapes of any American metropolis. One photo's prop is even the inexcusable mountaints of trash bags, which do seem to be an NYC site-specific "feature". The fashions are beautiful though, although the article bizarrely even mocks those as inappropriate for "street style". — Marcus on In the News: Remembering Imogen Roche

I do like the optimistic ring of "the Canal Street renaissance"....Let's hope for the best. — Marcus on In the News: Sea Boutique Opening Here

Are there those who actually prefer to live and work in "filthy, dangerous, ugly"? — Marcus on What’s Really Happening to Canal Street

The 10-unit Tribeca building is likely 111 Hudson Street, based on certain terms quoted in the article matching those in the decision below. The case is at least 4 years old now; those delays are really among the biggest challenges in such litigation. 2018 NY Slip Op 30858(U) THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 111 HUDSON STREET CONDOMINIUM, Plaintiff, v. 111 HUDSON STREET, LLC, CHRISTINA SCHUITEMAKER, PETER MOORE, GIORA MANOR, TRIPLE ONE REALTY, L.L.C., MARK ANG, JOSEPH DUMBACHER, JOHN DUMBACHER, SETHURAMAN PRAKASH, VANDANA SHETH, DANIELLE RICH, 111 HUDSON STORE LLC, Defendant. Docket No. 651959/2014, Motion Seq. No. 015. Supreme Court, New York County. May 7, 2018. DECISION AND ORDER BARRY OSTRAGER, Judge. Plaintiff Board of Managers of 111 Hudson Street Condominium (the "Board") moves for partial summary judgment on its sixth cause of action against Defendant 111 Hudson Street, LLC (the "Unit Owner") for certain unpaid common charges and assessments. The motion is granted in part for the reasons stated herein. The Unit Owner is the owner of the ground floor and basement commercial condominium unit at 111 Hudson Street. Under the bylaws of the condominium, all of the building's unit owners are required to pay their proportionate share of common charges and special assessments. On July 1, 2014, the Board voted to authorize a $25,000 special assessment on all unit owners to be used for legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the instant litigation, which arose because of various building maintenance issues. The Board also authorized an additional common charge of $227,000, over a twenty-two-month period, for the funding of reserves to pay legal fees and expenses in connection with the instant litigation. Monthly billing statements including the Unit Owner's proportion of the additional common charges and special assessment were delivered to the Unit Owner. It is undisputed that these charges were levied against the Unit Owner and that the Unit Owner failed to pay them. The Board now moves for partial summary judgment on its claim against the Unit Owner for the unpaid common charges and special assessment. "The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must establish that there are no material issues of fact in dispute and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." Mazurek v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 27 A.D.3d 227, 228 (1st Dep't 2006). Where the movant has made such a showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing the motion to raise genuine, triable issues of fact necessitating a trial. Id. A plaintiff may establish "its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, evidence of its authority to collect certain assessments of common charges and fees, invoices reflecting the defendants' account, and an affidavit of the president of the plaintiff attesting to the defendants' failure to pay the balance on the account." Board of Mgrs. of Brightwater Towers Condominium v. Cheskiy, 109 A.D.3d 944, 945 (1st Dep't 2013). Here, it is undisputed that the Board levied a special assessment and certain additional common charges and that the Unit Owner failed to pay. The sole dispute is whether the Board had the authority to levy the common charges in the first instance. Article V of the condominium bylaws states: (a) The Board of Managers shall, from time to time and at least annually, prepare a budget for the Common Expenses of the Condominium and fix the Common Charges payable by the Unit Owners . . . . The Common Expenses shall include the cost of all insurance premiums on all policies of insurance required to be or which the Board of Managers has obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of this Article V. The Common Expenses may also include (i) such amounts as the Board of Managers may deem proper for the operation and maintenance of the Property, including, without limitation, an amount for working capital of the Condominium, for a general operating reserve, for a reserve fund for replacements, and to make up any deficit in the Common Expenses for any prior year . . . (iii) such assessments as are necessary to provide funds for other Condominium purposes including, without limitation, capital improvements to, and repairs and replacements of Condominium real or personal property, the acquisition of real or personal property on behalf of the Unit Owners, and expenses which were not anticipated at the last time Common Expenses were determined. . . . Notwithstanding any other provision of these By-Laws, any Common Expense of the nature described in (iii) above and which is in excess of $25,000 shall require the approval of fifty percent (50%) in number and Common Interest of the Unit Owners. (Condominium Bylaws [NYSCEF Doc. 385]) (emphasis added). It is undisputed that the Unit Owners did not vote to approve the $227,000 in additional common charges. The Board argues that no vote was necessary because the additional common charges fall under Article V.1(a)(i) as funds "for a general operating reserve." No unit owner approval is necessary to levy funds under such category. The Unit Owner, in opposition, argues that the additional common charges required approval of the unit owners since it was for "expenses which were not anticipated at the last time Common Expenses were determined" and for an amount in excess of $25,000. Therefore, the Unit Owner asserts, the Board lacked the authority to levy the additional common charges and the motion for summary judgment on such claim must fail. The Court finds that the Board failed to submit sufficient evidence of its authority to levy the additional common charges. It is unclear whether the "general operating reserve" was intended to include funds for potential litigation, and the Board failed to tender evidence demonstrating such. The Unit Owner has raised a triable issue as to whether the general operating reserve was intended to include funds for litigation expenses. Therefore, the Board's motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for additional common charges is denied. However, there are no disputed issues of fact as to the Board's claim for the unpaid special assessment. The special assessment was not in excess of $25,000 and thus did not require unit owner approval. The July 21, 2014 invoice clearly charged the Unit Owner $5,035—its portion of the $25,000 special assessment. Payment was due on August 1, 2014. The Unit Owner did not pay the special assessment charge. Further, the Unit Owner does not contest the portion of the Board's motion that relates to the special assessment. Therefore, the Board's motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for the special assessment is granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the sixth cause of action is granted in part. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of The Board of Managers of 111 Hudson Street Condominium against 111 Hudson Street, LLC on so much of the sixth cause of action that relates to the special assessment in the amount of $5,035.00, with interest accruing at the contractual rate of 18% per annum from August 1, 2014. (Condominium Bylaws, Article V.5 [NYSCEF Doc. 385]). The remaining claims shall continue. — James on In the News: Sea Boutique Opening Here

Who doesn't want some cheery tomatoes in their day? — sheila johnston on Valentine No. 68

I noticed people cleaning it the other day and wondered if something was up. My guess is that it was a Fashion Week party. — Erik Torkells on Seen & Heard: Kudos for Our Neighborhood Coordination Officers

Not sure if you are being ironic, but reread the first bullet point of this post for the answer. — Ellen2 on In the News: Remembering Imogen Roche

Passed by Pure Barre on Reade Street today. A lot of flowers and candles.I asked 2 people standing there what happened and they didn't know. Does anybody know? — Sarah Ross on In the News: Remembering Imogen Roche

Did they reopen Don Hills? I see bouncers and lines outside. — Mrs M on Seen & Heard: Kudos for Our Neighborhood Coordination Officers

Ridiculous concept restaurant. Not surprised it failed. — Nina on Harry & Ida’s Luncheonette Has Closed

Incidentally, I've begun skimming those links and the arguments presented are mostly tendentious, in my opinion. Also, they are sprinkled with gestures that betray a political alignment that I can't support. When one writer hashtags the word "FullLibtard" I close the door on anything else they have to say. Again, I'll keep my mind open, but not to BS. — David G Imber on In the News: Teenager Fell to Her Death from Fire Escape

I appreciate your posting this and will read the arguments. I have to admit that I start out skeptical. Will it increase traffic? The area is already filled with courts and municipal offices, so I don't really see traffic patterns changing (it's not like they're putting in a sports stadium). Discussions about defiling "sacred" antique architecture that was never good architecture to begin with tend to get me into trouble, so I won't comment on the "vandalizing" of an "existing building". And as far as risk goes, does anyone really predict an Attica-type situation? Prison breaks are exceedingly rare, and it's not like there are going to be psychopaths roaming the streets instead of occupying very secure cells. But I'm just voicing my uncertainty about the objections, I'm not trying to be contrary, and will keep my mind open to the arguments. — David G Imber on In the News: Teenager Fell to Her Death from Fire Escape

The New Yorker should really stop writing restaurant reviews. Manhatta is one of the finest new eateries to open this year. Is it distasteful that it was a former Chase Bank? Not for me, but maybe to Chase Bank who advertises with the publication. — Mrs M on In the News: Remembering Imogen Roche

Well then ticket it for being in a no-standing zone. — Erik Torkells on Seen & Heard: Kudos for Our Neighborhood Coordination Officers

I think that hydrant is a remnant of the old high-pressure system which was deactivated in 1979. So maybe the police, knowing the fire department can't use the hydrant, don't ticket vehicles parked next to it. — Makes you go "hmmmm".... on Seen & Heard: Kudos for Our Neighborhood Coordination Officers

These all make sense to me and many are improvements on convention. I'll always prefer "stream beans" over "string beans". This makes my day. Bravo, Sole di Capri. Their tomatoes are truly cheery. — David G Imber on Valentine No. 68

The StyleCaster goes on with the insults, ending with: "Still…Tribeca?" It's hilarious actually. "....occasional residential building"... ?? Someone didn't do research. What neighborhood should they have chosen? I've always thought TriBeCa is one of the most photogenic neighborhoods in the city, at least from an architectural viewpoint. I see more models on the streets of TriBeCa than most NYC neighborhoods. And countless photo shoots on our street, often using our building as a backdrop. "Street style"? Does that mean attention to aesthetics in dress? That's a sad lack in all NYC neighborhoods, in my taste. I would choose Milan as a better standard of street style. — Marcus on In the News: Remembering Imogen Roche

The community board structure makes it virtually impossible for a huge portion of the neighborhood to ever be represented. It meets only at 6PM on weeknights. In many of the common industries where Tribeca citizens work, that's smack in the middle of the work day - and for Tribecans with young kids that's right when they're getting dinner ready and putting their kids to bed. There has to be some other way... — mg on Seen & Heard: Kudos for Our Neighborhood Coordination Officers

Looks like North Moore Street just west of West Broadway. — Robert Ripps on Where in Tribeca…?