$10M Co-op Closing on Fifth Avenue in New York City

March 2013

 

Itkowitz PLLC represented the seller on a $10M coop closing on Fifth Avenue in New York City, it closed last week.  The transaction featured a complex complication involving a heated dispute between the seller and the cooperative corporation over which party was responsible for water leak repairs on the terrace. The cooperative corporation took the position that an alteration agreement with the prior owner, which was never turned over to the seller at the time of her purchase, was binding on her. The shareholder disagreed and the parties were in a contested litigation at the time of contract.

 

During the approximate nine month period from contract to projected closing, the case settled allowing the closing to proceed, though it was delayed pending the seller finding acceptable new quarters.

 

A final wrinkle occurred at closing when the title company calculated the transfer tax on a commercial basis because the apartment was previously combined into one but as of record had two kitchens resulting in a commercial rate. Documentation by a professional showing one kitchen reduced the transfer tax to a residential rate resulting in significant savings.

 

itkowitz.com

Today’s Special: Dumpling House Fights Landlord Over Extortion Sidewalk Scaffolding

February 18, 2013 Epilogue:

 

The scaffolding came down!  The building apparently has a new owner with a new approach.  Lines for Spring are now out the door at lunch time.  As of this writing, there are 49 really amazing reviews on Yelp and a bunch on other sites.  It’s nice to be on side of the angels once in awhile…

Bao Fusion Food, Inc. v. West 38th Street Holdings LLC
(NY Supreme Court, October 12, 2012)

Itkowitz PLLC obtains partial injunction against owner trying to muscle a Manhattan retail store out of a building. The owner sought to buy out the lease for a newly constructed restaurant, Spring, and attempted to convince the tenant by erecting a scaffold with a black curtain that completely obscured the view of the restaurant from the street.  The court, after hearing evidence on a preliminary injunction, directed the removal of the curtain and the restaurant was able to open. The saga was detailed in the New York Observer.

Link to Full text of Decision

 

itkowitz.com

ALM Unlimited v. Donald Trump -- "'Part of the art of the deal is to comply with the deal, to fulfill your responsibilities..."

Donald Trump Likely To Testify In Clothing Line Licensing Dispute

The Real Deal, January 31, 2013
"Mogul may take the stand over Signature Collection commissions."

 

"Donald Trump, the bouffant-haired real estate mogul, is once again trading the boardroom for the courtroom. The developer is likely to testify in court this spring to respond to allegations that he improperly halted payments to New York City-based licensing firm ALM Unlimited, which helped him secure a licensing deal for his Trump-branded clothing line"...Read More...

 

Donald Trump faces Lawsuits Over Business Deals
USA Today, July 29, 2011

 

USA Today covered the case, quoting Jay B. Itkowitz: pointedly invoking the title of Trump's signature business book. 'We argue that he hasn't done that. I think if this little problem was presented on his TV show, somebody might get called down to the boardroom,' said Itkowitz. … 'This situation seems to be a case where a financially strong person is attempting to use economic power to get a better deal, namely to pay less than he's required to under the agreement…'"  Read More...

 

ALM Unlimited v. Donald Trump

(NYS Supreme Court, NY County, 5/19/2010)

 

Our client, ALM Unlimited, Inc. ("ALM") entered into a sole licensing agent agreement with Donald Trump ("Trump") for the production of quality apparel bearing the "Trump" brand (the "Agreement"). ALM, pursuant the Agreement, coordinated a deal between Trump and apparel manufacturer, Phillips-Van Heusen ("PVH"). With specific regard to the PVH deal, the parties modified the Agreement, adjusting the fee schedule, amending the requirements under the Agreement and extending the time period contemplated thereunder ("Modified Agreement"). However, the Modified Agreement was not in the form of a formal writing, and Trump moved to dismiss the action based upon that fact. Our attorneys were able to convince the Court that despite the fact that the Modified Agreement was not reduced to a formal writing, the various emails, invoices and payments between the parties give rise to a viable claim for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, quantum meruit and declaratory judgment. 

 

Link to Full Text of Decision

 

itkowitz.com

Summary Judgment and Attorneys Fees on Good Guy Guaranty Against Famous Hat Designer

Wassfam LLC v. Orlando Rene Palacios
(NY Supreme Court, January 24, 2013)

After winning as to liability on summary judgment, Plaintiff successfully established at inquest its entitlement to $59,680.16 in damages (with interest from November 2010), and $30,527.00 in attorneys’ fees.

Wassfam LLC v. Orlando Rene Palacios
(NY Supreme Court, August 15, 2012)

After obtaining a judgment of possession against Tenant Palacios in the New York Civil Court, Plaintiff Landlord sued Tenant pursuant to a written Good Guy Guaranty for unpaid rent owed under a commercial lease. Subsequent to Landlord filing the Note of Issue, Defendant brought an Order to Show Cause, seeking, among other things, to: (1) amend his Answer to assert an affirmative defense based upon Multiple Dwelling Law (MDL) §302 [MDL § 302 precludes landlords of residential buildings from collecting rent absent registration of the building as a multiple dwelling]; (2) strike the Note of Issue; and (3) compel additional discovery. Plaintiff opposed the motion on all counts and cross-moved for summary judgment as to liability. In denying Defendant leave to amend his Answer, the Court noted that although leave to amend pleadings should be freely given, such leave is limited to amendments that have merit. The Court essentially found that where a lease is for commercial use and a landlord expressly prohibits residential use of the premises, a tenant who unilaterally resides at the premises in violation of the lease is not entitled to benefit from MDL § 302. As such, the Court denied Defendant's application to amend his Answer. Moreover, the Court refused to vacate the Note of Issue on the grounds that Defendant failed to timely move to strike, and found that post-note of issue discovery was unwarranted on the grounds that there were no "unusual or unanticipated circumstances" requiring further discovery. The Court ultimately denied Defendant's Order to Show Cause on all counts, and also found that Plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability.

Link to Full Text of Decision

itkowitz.com

Broker Fights Off Most Claims in Federal Discrimination Case

Short v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc.

(U. S. District Court, Southern District, December 3, 2012)

Itkowitz PLLC was retained three weeks before the commencement of a federal trial to substitute for a prior attorney to defend a real estate brokerage company on a hotly contested discrimination case in which one of the plaintiffs was an impact litigating public interest non profit. The plaintiffs sought over $300k in compensatory and punitive damages on six counts of discrimination on the grounds that the real estate company had discriminated against an HIV infected indigent client on the grounds of his handicap (AIDS) and on his source of income (the New York City Human Resources Administration HASA program). Itkowitz quickly marshaled a small team of attorneys led by Jay Itkowitz to defend the case, master the pretrial materials and conduct a defense. The plaintiffs were Keith Short, an indigent person who moved to New York City from Washington D.C. and the Fair Housing Justice Center.

Fair Housing Justice Center singled out ABBA Realty, a small brokerage firm, together with Manhattan Apartments, one of the larger residential brokerage companies in the City. ABBA, despite its small size, is ironically one of the leading companies in the City providing brokerage services to the disabled population including persons with active infections with the AIDS virus. ABBA historically has done in excess of 100 leases a year for people associated with the HASA program, serving the AIDS population, at a time when many brokerage companies fail to provide such services.

Nevertheless, Fair Housing Justice Center aggressively went after ABBA despite its extensive track record of assisting people with AIDS because according to FHJC, it used a “segregated” system for serving such persons, i.e. it did not make all of its listings available to HASA clients

Following the conclusion of five days of contested testimony, and the submission of post trial briefs, the Court dismissed all of the claims against ABBA, except a claim based upon New York City’s strict “Source of Income” law, which proscribes real estate agents and owners from discriminating against clients based upon the source of their income for the payment of rent, in this case, subsidies from the NYC Human Resources Administration. Importantly, the Court dismissed each and every single cause of action arising under the Fair Housing Act.

However, notwithstanding that the plaintiffs sought over $300,000 in “compensatory and punitive” damages, the Court only awarded the plaintiffs $12,500 against ABBA on a case that could have been settled with no problem at the outset had the plaintiffs not been interested in seeking a precedent that they could rely on in other situations.

 

Link to Full Text of Decision

 

Link to Press on Decision

 

itkowitz.com