R&E Client Newsletter - December 2023 by Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.

QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 2023

733 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017 WWW.ROSENBERGESTIS.COM 212-867-6000

“

In 2023, the industry saw unprecedented U.S. bank collapses and a surge in U.S. corporate bankruptcy filings, a rate not seen since the 2008 financial crisis and the onset of the pandemic with more U.S. corporate bankruptcy filings projected for 2024. This will continue to cause challenges for commercial real estate markets throughout the U.S., especially in NYC. Rosenberg & Estis continues to guide clients during this challenging time to protect assets and maximize recovery, providing a pathway to rebuild and redefine success. We wish you a happy and safe holiday season!”

John D. Giampolo Member and Head of Bankruptcy & Reorganization

Contents Rosenberg & Estis Feature Story 4 R&E Members Adam R. Sanders and Michael T. Carr collaborated on a comprehensive 3-part article series addressing the intricacies surrounding Local Law 97, including compliance details, prescriptive measures and financing strategies. This series was originally published in Brick Underground’s new Boards & Buildings section. Trust & Estates Feature: Maximize Gifting Practices This Season 8 Theodore (Ted) Metzger, Member & Head of the firm’s Trust & Estates Department, shares insightful year end strategies designed for clients to utilize their annual gifting exemptions to maximize intergenerational transfers, and to secure significant income tax savings by making charitable gifts. Property Tax Feature: 2023 Client Success Stories 10 Benjamin M. Williams, Member & Head of the firm’s Property Tax Department, presents a showcase of 2023 property tax success stories, where his expertise and unwavering advocacy led to substantial savings for New York City property owners. Podcast: Inside R&E Inside R&E is a podcast hosted by New York City’s leading real estate attorneys who discuss current issues facing developers, owners and operators in the industry.

Recent Publications Published works by our attorneys as seen in the New York Law Journal.

Press Releases 20 In another ground-breaking quarter, these press releases highlight some of R&E’s major recent legal successes, including the representation of The Durst Organization in One World Trade Center agreements to launch NEXTGEN TV in New York, an Appellate Court victory of first impression helping lenders and servicers prevent borrower delays in commercial foreclosure proceedings, and more. Recent Events 28 As the industry’s top legal resource, R&E attorneys were invited as expert speakers on in-person panels as well as several webinars.

FEATURE STORY

Local Law 97: Compliance Details, Financing Options and More As part of Brick Underground’s new Boards & Buildings section, R&E Members Adam R. Sanders and Michael T. Carr wrote a comprehensive 3-part series addressing compliance details as well as financing options related to Local Law 97.

Adam R. Sanders Member

Michael T. Carr Member

R&E EXCLUSIVE FEATURE STORY by Adam R. Sanders and Michael T. Carr December 2023

Local Law 97 kicks off this January. Is your building on track? (Part I: Overview) - Oct. 2023 • Local Law 97 is set to transform sustainability in New York City starting on January 1st, 2024. It mandates that buildings over 25,000 square feet reduce their carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050 • The penalties for failing to meet emissions limits are substantial, designed to exceed the cost of implementing green measures New York City stands on the cusp of a transformative era in sustainability. As many co-op and condo boards are already aware, Local Law 97 (“LL 97”), which will go into effect on January 1st, 2024, is at the heart of this change. “This is an aggressive plan to cut harmful emissions in New York City by requiring, with some rare exceptions, that buildings over 25,000 square feet reduce their carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050,” says Adam R. Sanders of New York City real estate law firm Rosenberg & Estis. Shifting guidelines amid ongoing public hearings There are many evolving nuances to the guidelines as the NYC Department of Buildings (“DOB”) continues to hold public hearings this month and possibly through the end of 2023. “While we are not expecting any substantive changes to be proposed during these hearings, the central points of discussion will likely be the newer portions of the guidelines, such as the ‘good faith efforts’ and mitigation factors,” Sanders says. “We do know that the affected covered buildings must comply beginning January 1st, 2024 or complete ‘prescriptive energy

conservation measures’ by December 31st, 2024,” he says, noting some buildings qualify for a later compliance date. More specifically, under Article 321 of LL 97, buildings that contain affordable or rent-regulated units may follow such alternative compliance pathways to ease their burden until the end of 2024. Buildings that qualify are those that have more than 35 percent of units rent-regulated, Housing Development Fund Corporation (HDFC) Cooperatives, and buildings that have HUD project-based assistance. A list of prescriptive measures is set forth in the regulations, found here. They include, among other measures, new windows, replacing and repairing HVAC systems, integrating solar energy, adding proper insulation, and weatherizing and air sealing buildings. All buildings (regardless of whether they must begin coming into compliance on January 1st, 2024 or later) must comply with the 2030-2034 standards by 2030. The high cost of non-compliance The penalties of non-compliance are substantial. “They aren’t just a slap on the wrist. The DOB designed the penalties to exceed the cost of going green,” says Michael T. Carr, a real estate attorney at Rosenberg & Estis. Exceeding the emissions limit will cost a building $268 per ton over the limit. For example, a 50,000-square-foot multifamily residential building emitting 400 metric tons of carbon would be 72.5 metric tons over its limit for 2024-2029. Thus, it would be fined $19,430. There are also fines associated with the failure to file an annual compliance report and for stating false information on such report. Compliance is therefore a smart financial move. “We’re advising our boards and our building owners to audit their buildings or portfolios now, if they haven’t already, in

FEATURE STORY

order to understand the compliance period that applies to their property and the measures they need to take to comply with Local Law 97 and avoid or reduce potential penalties,” Carr says. “Now is the time consult with in-house engineers, superintendents and outside professionals to determine your exposure and establish a mitigation roadmap to compliance.” Either way, buildings that don’t meet carbon emissions requirements will have to pay the cost of complying or pay penalties, Carr says. “The time is now to proactively start examining alternate financing options,” Sanders advises.

Financing options to help NYC buildings comply with Local Law 97 emissions limits (Part II) - Dec. 2023 • Building owners can get long-term, fixed-rate financing through the PACE program • Electrification projects in low-income areas may qualify for 1.5 percent fixed-rate loans • Utility companies offer financial incentives to market-rate and affordable housing owners The party’s over. On January 1st, 2024, New York City condo and co-op board members will wake up to a sobering reality: the beginning of the compliance period for Local Law 97’s strict energy emissions levels. Even more pressing than forming a compliance plan is coming up with a way to pay for it. “Given the potential financial impact of Local Law 97, building owners, co-ops, and condominiums should promptly implement a compliance plan, if they have not already done so, to address how to pay for the needed capital improvements,”

says Adam R. Sanders of New York City real estate law firm Rosenberg & Estis. Below are several programs that can help your building pay for Local Law 97 upgrades. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) The Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing program assists building owners with long-term, fixed-rate financing, with rates currently around 5-6 percent. This can be used for capital improvements that reduce utility costs, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. It’s different from traditional financing in that it stays with the building, not the specific owner, says Michael T. Carr, a real estate attorney at Rosenberg & Estis. “PACE financing is solely tied to real property, and the loan is repaid by the borrower through a charge intended to be included on a property tax bill for the property,” Carr says. This means the loan is transferred when the property changes ownership. While the loans are publicly recorded in land records, they do not create a lien on the property and are not subject to a mortgage recording tax, which results in significant savings, he explains. Community Decarbonization Fund The NY Green Bank has launched a $250 million Community Decarbonization Fund (CDF). The CDF supports local clean energy and building electrification projects primarily located in low-income, disadvantaged census tracts that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by providing low-cost capital to qualified Community Development Financial Institutions lenders. The loans range from $2 million to $25 million or 20 percent of an eligible borrower’s total capitalization, whichever is less,

FEATURE STORY

and come in the form of a 12-year loan at a fixed rate of 1.5 percent. Inflation Reduction Act The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides $8.8 billion in funding to reduce energy consumption in multifamily buildings. Building owners with residents considered low or moderate-income can receive rebates for the purchase and installation of clean energy upgrades, with a total cap of $14,000 per dwelling unit. “Notably, it is not only building owners who are eligible to receive rebates through this program,” Sanders points out, “but also individual unit owners making upgrades to their own dwellings. Furthermore, building owners making energy-efficient improvements to their properties may qualify for tax deductions.” Utility company incentives Con Edison, National Grid, and other utility companies provide financial incentives to reduce carbon emissions for market-rate and affordable housing multifamily building owners. For market-rate properties, the Multifamily Energy Efficient Program (MFEEP) provides payments for owners looking to install energy-efficient equipment in their buildings. MFEEP eligibility is restricted to buildings utilized for residential purposes and excludes new construction projects. Note, however, that the incentives are taxable by the IRS. Similarly, the Affordable Multifamily Energy Efficiency Program (AMEEP) offers eligible building owners financial incentive payments for installing energy efficient equipment to projects in which at least 25 percent of the units occupied by households earning less than 80 percent AMI.

Navigating funding obstacles faced by condo and co-op buildings complying with Local Law 97 (Part III) - Dec. 2023 Maneuvering through the financial maze of Local Law 97 compliance, co-op and condo buildings encounter an unexpected twist: their ownership structure limits funding to a few paths. These include hiking maintenance or common charges, imposing special assessments, dipping into their cash reserves, or taking out loans.

A special assessment to make the necessary upgrades may require large payments over a short period of time, while maintenance/common charge increases become a permanent burden on unit owners and shareholders. Worst-case scenarios “There is the possibility that large assessments or monthly increases could deter prospective buyers from buying into a building,” says Michael T. Carr, a real estate attorney at Rosenberg & Estis. Another potential pitfall, he says, is if unit owners or shareholders cannot afford to make such a significant payment each month. “Co-op and condo boards need to plan for these worst-case scenarios,” Carr says. “One possible solution is for a board to identify a preferred lender who is willing to pre-qualify a building and to offer home equity lines of credit (HELOC) to shareholders or unit owners who prefer to finance their obligations.” Special borrowing challenges for condo buildings Some boards may want to consider borrowing to finance energy improvements. It is common for co-ops to borrow money because a cooperative corporation owns its property, which can be offered as collateral. Borrowing by condo buildings is far less common and may not be an option for all condos. Because condos do not own the building, they cannot collateralize real property, and the only collateral for the loan is monthly common charges, the board’s bank accounts, and reserve funds. Section 339-jj of the New York Condominium Act permits the board of managers to borrow money, but only to the extent that the condominium’s declaration or by-laws allow for such borrowing. There are other complications. “Many governing condominium documents require the approval of unit owners for borrowing above a certain threshold, and acquiring the necessary majority or supermajority of unit owners is no easy feat,” Sanders says. Unit owners may be opposed to a board’s loan because there is no tax deduction for the interest payable on the loan—a cost fully incurred by unit owners, he points out.

“Unfortunately, no method is perfect, and each alternative has a unique set of challenges,” says Adam R. Sanders of New York City real estate law firm Rosenberg & Estis.

Exploring additional financing options New condominium buildings with some sponsor-controlled units may agree to allocate the funds from the sale of any sponsor-controlled units toward the payment of the upgrades.

Energy-efficient upgrades are also very costly. Whether a condo or co-op board elects to allocate the debt through a special assessment or include in maintenance or common charges, they can have a significant impact on a building’s financial position, Sanders says.

“Alternatively, sponsors with unsold units may qualify for PACE financing and may shift the payment structure to the property tax bill,” Sanders says. “While the cost will still be borne by residents through their common charges, it may be less burdensome given the benefits of PACE financing.”

FEATURE STORY

Co-ops are also eligible to receive PACE funding. The New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation also offers the Multifamily Express Green (MEG) loan, specifically for condominiums and cooperatives implementing energy upgrades. MEG loans start at a minimum of $200,000 and can finance up to 90 percent of the project costs. Interest rates are set at 7 percent, and the term is the length of the construction period, plus a 10-year amortization period. But buildings that already have loans may not be able to take on more debt, Carr points out. “For condominiums or cooperatives with existing loans, the terms of those loans may outright prohibit additional or secondary debt. Secondary debt may be permissible, but only through the same lender,” he says. Careful review of both loan documents and underlying governing documents is critical to successful planning and implementation of Local Law 97 projects. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. is closely tracking all developments surrounding Local Law 97. Real estate attorneys Adam R. Sanders and Michael T. Carr are poised to answer any questions you have about the preparation of buildings for Local Law 97 compliance, as well as financing options.

Member & Head of the firm’s Trust & Estates Department 8

TRUST & ESTATES: 2023 GIFT-GIVING PRACTICES

Maximize Your Gift-Giving This Holiday Season Theodore (Ted) Metzger, Member & Head of the firm’s Trust & Estates Department, shares insightful year end strategies designed for clients to utilize their annual gifting exemptions to maximize intergenerational transfers, and to secure significant income tax savings by making charitable gifts. As Ted indicates, this special section “only scratches the surface of what can be accomplished” by leveraging trust and estates tactics within your financial planning and gifting. As the end of 2023 approaches, there is still time to consider year-end gifting strategies to maximize gift and estate tax savings and pass assets to younger generations. In addition, those charitably inclined may reap income tax deductions on their 2023 taxes by making charitable donations this month. Following are several strategies you may want to consider: Annual Gifts One simple step is utilizing your annual gift tax exclusion to make gifts to children, grandchildren, and other relatives. In 2023, an individual may gift up to $17,000 per recipient without paying any gift tax or utilizing any of the individual’s lifetime gift and estate tax exemption. A married couple may double that amount to $34,000 per recipient. The amount of tax-free transfers can add up quickly. For example, a married couple with two children and four grandchildren may transfer $204,000 to their descendants. However, unlike the lifetime gift and estate tax exemption which, is cumulative, the annual exemption expires each year. If you haven’t used it by the end of December, you will lose the opportunity for 2023. The annual exemption is set to increase to $18,000 per recipient ($36,000 for a couple) in 2024. Gifts may be in cash, stocks, securities, or even interests in closely held entities, including those holding real estate interests (though in such cases, an appraisal justifying the valuation of the interest would be needed). Gifts to qualified 529 education plans may also be made. Note that a gift must be a present interest to qualify for the annual exemption. Present interest gifts are gifts the recipient can enjoy immediately and without restriction. Gifts to trusts may not qualify depending on the terms of the trust. Utilizing Lifetime Gift and Estate Tax Exemption In addition to the annual gift tax exemption discussed above, federal tax law provides individuals who are citizens or resi-

dent aliens a cumulative amount they may transfer over their lifetimes or at death. In 2023, the federal lifetime exemption is $12.92 million ($25.84 million per couple). In 2024, the lifetime exemption increases to $13.61 million ($27.22 million per couple). There will be a further increase in the exemption amount for 2025. However, unless reauthorized by Congress, the federal exemption amount is set to automatically reduce to $5 million indexed for inflation (estimated to be approximately $7 million) as of January 1, 2026. Transfers made prior to January 1, 2026, will be able to utilize the larger exemption amounts. Individuals with estates larger than approximately $7 million or couples with estates larger than approximately $14 million should, therefore, consider estate planning techniques to reduce their estates before the end of 2025. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. would be happy to assist you with the application of the numerous techniques (trusts, discounted gifts, installment sales and more) highlighted in this feature. New York Estate and Gift Tax New York no longer imposes a gift tax. However, a gift made within three years of a person’s death is added back into the deceased’s gross estate and is included in determining whether New York estate tax is due. New York does impose an estate tax, and the lifetime exemption for persons dying in 2023 is only $6.58 million. The 2024 exemption amount has yet to be released. However, many individuals and/or couples will not be subject to federal estate tax but will be subject to New York estate tax, which can be as high as 16%. Charitable Giving Finally, for those charitably inclined, you may secure con-

TRUST & ESTATES: 2023 GIFT-GIVING PRACTICES

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how you can maximize gifting this year, contact Theodore (Ted) Metzger: tmetzger@rosenbergestis.com (212) 551-2046

siderable income tax savings on your 2023 income taxes by making charitable gifts in December. Cash gifts to public charities or a Donor Advised Fund are deductible up to 60% of the adjusted gross income of an individual or married couple filing jointly. Contributions of appreciated stock or other non-cash items are deductible up to 30% of adjusted gross income. Any amount above these limits may be carried over for up to five years. Gifting appreciated stock or other assets may also avoid incurring capital gains on the sale of such assets. Another popular technique for those over 70½ is to make a Qualified Charitable Contribution from an IRA to satisfy in whole or in part that person’s Required Minimum Distribution and avoid its inclusion in the person’s adjusted gross income. Conclusion It is always a good time to review your financial picture, estate, and gift planning. This article only scratches the surface of what can be accomplished. If you have any questions or would like assistance in your estate and gift planning, we at Rosenberg & Estis would be happy to assist you. DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this article, the information provided may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

PROPERTY TAX: CLIENT SUCCESS STORIES

Rosenberg & Estis Client Success Stories Benjamin M. Williams, Member & Head of the firm’s Property Tax Department, presents a showcase of 2023 property tax success stories, where his expertise and unwavering advocacy led to substantial savings for New York City property owners. STORY 1: Pre-war co-op on the Upper East Side with sub-$11k property taxes 225 East 79th Street, a charming pre-war cooperative building with 77 apartments, sits on the north side of East 79th Street, mid-block between Second and Third Avenues. The 1930-vintage building is 17-stories high and has a gross building area of 59,000-sf. The co-op was formed in the mid-1980s, and enjoyed a J-51 property tax abatement which ended in 2020. • Property: Co-op in Yorkville, Upper East Side, Manhattan • Tax savings: $244,000 • Assessed Value reductions: -13.2% and -11.5% The property tax assessments were relatively stable until 2022, increasing on average 3.5% per year over the prior decade until COVID. For the first COVID assessment in 2021, the NYC Department of Finance (DOF) dropped the assessed value -10%, which was common for similar buildings. The anomaly happened the next year. In 2022, DOF increased the assessed value +27%! That large of an increase was unusual as DOF that year typically increased the assessed values to around their pre-COVID 2020/21 assessed values. How did DOF do that? State law requires DOF determine market value of co-ops as-if they were hypothetically rental buildings, not on their sales prices. DOF identifies the most similar rental properties based on size, location, number of units, and age. DOF then uses statistical modeling of those rental comparables (“comps”) to assign estimated income and expenses for the subject. In 2022, DOF’s estimated rental income for 225 East 79th Street was $3,350 per unit per month, based on comps 229 East 80th Street, 107 East 80th Street, and 108 East 81st Street.

To protest the assessed values, we filed applications with the Tax Commission every year since the co-op hired us in 2020. We had a hearing in 2022 and aggressively sought to have the unusually large increase moderated. Unfortunately, the Tax Commission did not offer to reduce the assessed value that year. Nevertheless, we filed a petition New York County Supreme Court to preserve the challenge to the 2022/23 tax year. We again filed in 2023 and had a Tax Commission hearing in early May before the assessment roll was finalized. We showed our own rental comps which indicated estimated rents of $2,200-$2,700 per month. Only eight days after the hearing, the Tax Commission gave us a two-year offer for both 2023/24 and 2022/23 totaling $1,970,000 of assessed value reductions. The co-op eagerly accepted the offer, which reduced the gross tax to under $11,000 per unit, before the co-op/condo abatement. The reductions were special for two reasons: (1) they were larger than the Tax Commission’s median assessment reduction of -8.5%, and (2) they included a prior year, and the Tax Commission’s prior year offer rate has typically been under 5%.

“Excellent work. The co-op was very pleased with the above-average property tax reductions that Ben successfully obtained.” - Randy Glick, Secret

PROPERTY TAX: CLIENT SUCCESS STORIES

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how you can reduce your New York City property taxes, contact Benjamin M. Williams: bwilliams@rosenbergestis.com (212) 551-1246

STORY 2: Pair of century-old Turtle Bay walkups get post-COVID property tax reductions The buildings at 928 and 930 2nd Avenue sit mid-block on the east side of Second Avenue between East 49th and 50th Streets in the Turtle Bay neighborhood of Midtown East, Manhattan. The United Nations and the East River are two blocks east, and the properties sit halfway between the Queensboro Bridge and Queens-Midtown Tunnel entrances. These 120-year-old walk-up buildings were allegedly built around 1900-1901. Each five-story building has one ground-floor retail store, with many small apartments above. The owner bought each building for $9 million in 2014. • Properties: Residential walk-ups with retail, Midtown East, Manhattan • Tax savings: $77,000 • Assessed Value reductions: -15% and -22%

The assessed values peaked pre-COVID in tax year 2020/21. The Department of Finance (DOF) dropped the assessed values the next year in 2021/22 after COVID began, but increased them in tax year 2022/23 to just under their pre-COVID peaks. DOF increased one building’s assessment +33%! We had the Tax Commission hearings that spring and argued why the properties were over-assessed. Just three weeks later, the Tax Commission offered to reduce one property’s assessed value -15% and the other -21%. Both reductions were substantially more than the Tax Commission’s citywide median reduction of -8.5%. The very next year, DOF increased the assessed value of one property +17% and we got it reduced again. Overall we reduced the property taxes $77,000, which the owner appreciated as the properties’ economics slowly recovered post-COVID.

The owner came to us in late 2021 and asked us to take over the property tax protests from the prior attorney. The property tax cases hadn’t settled in several years, and the owner had proceedings pending for four open tax years dating back to 2018. Our plan was to start filing Tax Commission applications and seek hearings for review in 2022. We reviewed the prior protest filings, Real Property Income & Expense (RPIE) forms, and rent rolls to get a grasp on the issues. We quickly setup the cases for our own protests with limited further input required from the owner. To preserve the current tax year’s challenges, we immediately filed Article 7 petitions in New York County Supreme Court. The property economics were strained. Net operating income had dropped in both buildings due to COVID. The restaurants’ businesses suffered with the lockdowns and the owner generously gave them rent abatements so they could stay in business. Nevertheless, one restaurant vacated and the other’s arrears grew unsustainably and costly litigation ensued. Residential rents were already low because half the apartments are rent regulated with average rents 40% below market rents, and one tenant’s rent was even $113 per month!

“We were able to seamlessly transition our property tax cases to Ben and the Rosenberg & Estis property tax department after several years of rising taxes. Ben swiftly got us large property tax reductions which helped our bottom line, especially when we really needed it in those first post-COVID years.” - President of property owner

PROPERTY TAX: CLIENT SUCCESS STORIES

STORY 3: Double tax relief for distressed commercial building in Brooklyn Kingswood Center is located at 1630 East 15 Street along Kings Highway in the Midwood neighborhood of south-central Brooklyn, New York City. The 3-story building, constructed in 2006, has 230,000-sf of office, retail, and parking garage uses. Most of the retail space is occupied by T.J. Maxx, and part was used by temporary pop-up stores. The office space is leased to various health care providers like VNS Health, ElderServe, and New York Eye and Ear Infirmary. The basement garage has 250 indoor parking spaces. • Property: Commercial office and retail, Brooklyn • Tax savings: $180,000 • Assessed Value reduction: Over $1 million The owner, a retail-focused real estate investment trust spun off from another REIT, purchased the property in February 2020 for $88.8 million when the property taxes were $850,000. The owner hired us to reduce the property taxes, which in just the first year of ownership were increasing +31% to $1.1 million. The substantial increase was mostly due to the continued phase-out of the Industrial & Commercial Incentive Program (ICIP) exemption. The 15-year ICIP tax benefit ran from 2007 to 2022, and phased-out 20% per year in the last four years. Unfortunately, just one month after the acquisition, COVID-19 hit and occupancy started declining. Fitness center New York Sport Club filed for bankruptcy and closed its location. Office tenants representing almost 70,000-sf of space announced intentions to terminate their leases and vacate early. The owner recognized a $34 million non-cash impairment charge and transferred $66 million of non-recourse mortgage debt to a special servicer because net operating income wouldn’t cover debt service, default interest began to accrue, and the company was unwilling to fund the shortfalls. The estimated fair value had dropped to under $49 million. Wells Fargo filed to foreclose on the loan. Meanwhile and without warning, the tax assessor suspended the ICIP exemption due to “multiple Department of Buildings violations” - a rarely used and long-forgotten statute. When several other clients approached us with similar ICIP suspensions, we realized the assessor must have resurrected this

old law and embarked on a new citywide crackdown. Kingswood Center had 11 minor DOB violations, reduced to 5, which stemmed from a tenant’s escalators. All the violations weren’t cleared by the deadline, and the assessor revoked the exemption, despite our protests. We challenged the revocation at various city administrative agencies and even sued the city in Supreme Court. We alleged the assessor failed to send proper notice and the actual violations were not what the statute intended to punish. After 12 months, we got the city to reinstate the exemption, saving the client $70,000 in taxes. Separately, after four years of aggressively protesting the assessed value with the city, we finally reached a settlement with the Tax Commission. The assessor dropped the value -19% after COVID began but increased it +27% over the next two years. In making our case at the hearing, we demonstrated the property’s continued distress and struggling occupancy. We got the assessed market value reduced to $35.5 million, reducing the property taxes $110,000. By then the property was in the hands of a receiver.

“In August of 2023, the 2nd District Court appointed me as Receiver for the Kingswood Center. In my role to preserve the collateral on behalf of the trust, a top priority is increasing revenue while reducing operating expenses. I truly appreciate the work Ben provided and the $180,000 in property tax savings he was able to bring to the asset. These reductions will give the property well-deserved relief. Ben was a complete professional and responsive throughout the process.” - Yanni Marmarou, Partner / Managing Director of IPRG

PROPERTY TAX: CLIENT SUCCESS STORIES

PODCAST

Inside R&E is a podcast hosted by New York City’s leading real estate attorneys who discuss current issues facing developers, owners and operators in the industry. Inside R&E is the perfect way to kickstart your week in the New York real estate world. Inside R&E is available to stream on all major platforms including Apple Pod-

casts, Spotify, Amazon Music and Google Podcasts. Click here to listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.

PODCAST

RECENT EPISODES Real Estate Property Management in NYC: Operational Changes Since Covid-19, Implementation of Tech and Meeting Tenant Expectations Featuring Adam R. Sanders

A Thoughtful Discussion for NYC Commercial Landlords Leasing to Cannabis Dispensaries Featuring Adam Lindenbaum and Harris W. Davidson

Aging Condo and Coop Buildings Struggling to Meet Tightening NYC Climate Regulations Featuring Michael A. Pensabene

Decoding Local Law 97: Owners and Operators Navigating NYC’s Green Future Featuring Michael T. Carr

PUBLICATIONS

The Well-Intended Human Rights Violation Regardless of intent, residential real estate professionals, owners, and landlords in New York could be violating New York’s complex human rights law.

Real estate professionals in New York might unknowingly operate in a manner that runs afoul of the nuanced requirements of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the New York State Human Rights Law (SHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL, and together with the FHA, and SHRL, the “Human Rights Laws”). A simple example is a “no dogs” or “no pets” reference on a listing for an apartment in New York City. Under the NYCHRL, this common practice “expresses a limitation, specification, or discrimination against individuals with service animals and emotional support animals.” See NYC Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability, “Commission’s Guidance” NYCCHR_LegalGuide-DisabilityFinal.2.pdf, at p. 47. Does a housing provider prohibiting dogs and/or pets intend to exclude someone with a seeing eye dog? Probably not. Nonetheless, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (the Commission) believes the advertisement prohibiting dogs outright, with no mechanism for obtaining an exception for service or emotional support animals, likely has a disparate impact on persons with disabilities. Housing discrimination claims can take the form of disability discrimination, as well as discrimination based upon age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, and other protected classes. Pending legislation known as the “Fair Chance Act” aims to prohibit all housing providers from having blanket bans based upon criminal history. When one is accused of housing discrimination, the exposure goes beyond the fees for defense. Fiscal liability for compensatory and punitive damages, civil penalties, and the opposing party’s attorney fees may be awarded, as well as affirmative directives and injunctive relief, such as a mandate to create fair housing policies, conduct trainings, publish notices, and report on future compliance. Discrimination claims under these laws often involve little-known exposure points. Under the SHRL and NYCHRL, a housing provider’s exposure is most often in the context of disability discrimination and/or source of income discrimination. Liability can be imposed regardless of an intent to discriminate, such as the aforementioned advertisement purporting to exclude or prohibit pets.

As seen in the New York Law Journal By Gary M. Rosenberg, Cori A. Rosen and Ethan R. Cohen December 5, 2023

Source of income discrimination involves the practice of refusing to rent to current or prospective tenants seeking to pay for housing with vouchers, subsidies, or forms of public assistance. This form of discrimination includes, but is not limited to, giving a preference to cash applicants over voucher applicants, failing to timely respond to questions from voucher applicants, failing to timely complete paperwork to allow a voucher applicant to complete their application, or having minimum income or credit score benchmarks that result in the denial of an applicant whose entire rent obligation

PUBLICATIONS

would be satisfied by a form of government assistance. The Commission even goes as far as to state that advertisements for an apartment may be discriminatory if they state “your credit score must be at least X” or “you must make at least Y, or 20x the rent.” https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/ source-of-income.page. Disability discrimination, conversely, is not just outward animus or a refusal to design for wheelchair accessibility, but also includes the failure to provide a “reasonable accommodation.” A reasonable accommodation can be a change, exception, or modification to rules, policies, practices, or services to enable individuals with disabilities to use and enjoy their dwellings and/or the common areas of a building (i.e., allowing emotional support animals in a building that otherwise prohibits “pets”), or a physical modifications to a space to make it usable by one with a disability. Under the NYCHRL, as opposed to the SHRL and FHA, a housing provider must perform these physical modifications without passing, directly or indirectly, the cost onto the tenant (see Commission’s Guidance p. 83). Effective Oct. 15, 2018, the NYCHRL was expanded to include a cause of action for “failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue” when a tenant or prospective tenant needs a “Reasonable Accommodation” for their disability or the disability of one associated and/or affiliated with them. When housing providers directly or indirectly learn that an accommodation is needed for a disability, they have an affirmative obligation to engage in a cooperative dialogue with the individual which includes responding in a reasonable period of time (10 days is recommended by the Commission, see Commission’s Guidance, p. 131). In many instances, tenants provide minimally sufficient documents from a “health professional” stating the existence of a disability and that the accommodation requested would ameliorate or alleviate the impact of the disability. Housing providers may not take the request seriously, believing it to be disingenuous or unfounded. Failing or delaying in responding to these requests, however unusual, may, in and of itself, be discriminatory. Under the NYCHRL, all accommodations are reasonable unless the housing provider shows that the requested accommodation would cause it an “undue hardship.” The NYCHRL only requires one to show that (1) they have a disability; (2) the housing provider knew or should have known about the disability; (3) an accommodation would enable the tenant to enjoy the rights in question; and (4) the housing provider failed to provide an accommodation (see Commission’s Guidance, p. 53). Once these are shown, the housing provider must prove that the request would cause an undue hardship in the conduct of its business (id., see also, NYC Admin. Code, §8-102).

What is an undue hardship in the conduct of a housing provider’s business? The short answer: who knows? According to the Commission’s Guidance, the cost of the requested accommodation is not enough to show “undue hardship.” The Commission’s assessment of “undue hardship” will involve review and consideration of the overall resources available to the business or agency. The Commission will demand disclosure of financial documents and records of outside resources and tax incentives, as well as organizational information regarding the entity as a whole. Failure to provide relevant documentary evidence may result in an adverse inference with respect to the determination of civil penalties (see Commission’s Guidance p. 80-81). In our experience, reasonable accommodation requests are rarely as simple as a request to install grab bars or a ramp. For instance, with the creation of the “cooperative dialogue” requirement and unequivocal position that all “reasonable” accommodations must be provided at the expense of the housing provider, co-author Cori Rosen has assisted clients in addressing a wide array of unusual requests, including: • relocation to larger and more expensive apartments to accommodate claustrophobia, without paying the increase in rent; • relocation to a penthouse to avoid toxic fumes allegedly coming from garage or amenity spaces; • exceptions to noise regulations to allow a tenant to keep three “emotional support” parakeets despite disruption to neighbors; • replacement of wooden floors with cushions to allow a tenant with back issues to fall to the ground; and • soundproofing an apartment in the heart of New York City, to remove inaudible noises for a tenant with tinnitus. Housing providers need not provide the specific accommodation requested by an individual, but they must propose reasonable alternatives that meet the individual’s needs or address the impairment at issue. The cooperative dialogue continues until a request is granted, the housing provider determines that all accommodations would cause an undue hardship, or an accommodation is offered that meets the individual’s needs, but the applicant refuses to accept it. Written confirmation of the conclusion of the cooperative dialogue is required in each instance. Moreover, a tenant cannot be stopped from making future requests, and a cooperative dialogue must occur for each, and every, request made. Most housing providers are not aware of these and other obligations until an investigation or lawsuit is commenced. Once a complaint is filed, years of investigation into a housing provider’s business practices and financials will likely ensue. Administrative agencies are empowered to contact former and current tenants and building employees, and during such

PUBLICATIONS

investigations, may suspect that an unrelated act of discrimination has occurred, resulting in the opening of yet another investigation. Although most of these proceedings settle, settlements are often published on the agencies’ website, and may include company and individual employee names, along with specific references to the penalties and damages awarded. The worst exposure, however, is arguably that an adverse discrimination finding (or a published settlement) opens the floodgates to opportunistic lawsuits by attorneys hoping to establish a pattern or practice of discrimination and to profit from the right to recover attorneys’ fees under the Human Rights Laws. The best way to avoid liability is to create policies and educate employees on compliance with the Human Rights Laws. Apart from the obvious avoidance of litigation, these proactive measures are often considered by administrative agencies investigating and, hopefully, dismissing allegations of housing discrimination.

PUBLICATIONS

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Represents The Durst Organization In One World Trade Center Agreements To Launch NEXTGEN TV In New York

Agreements for One World Trade Center allow local channels to broadcast ultra-high definition programming in largest US television market Featuring Jean S. Tom November 28, 2023 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York City’s premier real estate law firm, served as legal counsel to The Durst Organization in a broadcast television deal to bring state-of-the-art technology to the number one television market in the country. The deal allows public television station WLIW to host the transmission of NEXTGEN TV from the 408-foot spire that caps the 1,776-foot One World Trade Center tower. Officially known as ATSC 3.0, NEXTGEN TV is a new over-the air broadcast standard that improves the television viewing experience with 4K broadcasts, higher sound and video quality, multi-language closed captioning and a number of other outstanding features. Durst completed a series of telecommunications agreements with various broadcasters that will allow WLIW to act as ATSC 3.0 host from One World Trade Center and ‘lighthouse’ the signal for six local channels which can now broadcast NEXTGEN TV over-the-air: WCBS (2), WLIW (21), WMBQ-CD (46), WNBC (NBC 4), WNET (13), and WNJU (Telemundo 47). Jean S. Tom, Of Counsel with Rosenberg & Estis, represented The Durst Organization in the transactions. Robert Becker and Marc Musgrove handled the negotiations in-house for The Durst Organization. “The Durst Organization is committed to the success of our tenants and partners. As long-term owners, we continually invest in our properties to offer the latest technologies and services,” said Jody Durst, President of The Durst Organization. “As the tallest building in Manhattan, One World Trade Center has become a beacon of innovation in the world of television.” “NEXTGEN TV is the future of over-the-air transmission, and we are delighted that One World Trade Center can help the more than one million viewers in the New York City area en-

joy a host of exciting new features and an enhanced viewing experience like never before,” said Marc Musgrove, Director of Broadcast Communications at The Durst Organization. Built by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and The Durst Organization in a unique public-private partnership, One World Trade Center sets a new standard of design, construction, and prestige. As the tallest building in the western hemisphere, the tower offers advanced communications and technology infrastructure and unobstructed 360-degree signals to serve the tri-state region. Its state-of-the-art master antenna system emits approximately 2.2 megawatts of effective radiated power and serves multiple broadcasters, including CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX and ION Media. Durst installed patented variable polarization technology to further boost the tower’s broadcasting system in 2017 and augment its position as the nation’s preeminent broadcast site to transmit NEXTGEN TV service. To date, the Rosenberg & Estis telecommunications subspecialty team consisting of Ms. Tom and others has worked on more than 40 television and radio broadcast license agreements for The Durst Organization’s One World Trade Center and One Five One West 42nd Street towers. Among other telecommunications infrastructure uses, Rosenberg & Estis negotiates agreements on behalf of building owners with telecommunications providers for various telecommunications infrastructure uses, including cell phones, television signals and fiber optic networks to provide service to tenants at those buildings or to the general public. “I am proud to represent The Durst Organization as it takes part in the next evolution in digital technology,” said Ms. Tom. “Negotiating these agreements with the various broadcasters to launch NEXTGEN TV in New York will enable viewers to experience enhanced television broadcasts when tuning in to those stations.”

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis Wins Case of First Impression that Helps Lenders, Servicers Prevent Borrower Delays in Commercial Foreclosure Proceedings New York Appellate Court issues unanimous reversal related to standing in a commercial condo mortgage default case Featuring Howard W. Kingsley and Laura A. Raheb November 6, 2023 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., a premier New York City real estate law firm, has won a significant victory at the Appellate Division, First Department, in a case of first impression, setting precedent for lenders and servicers to prevent debtors from delaying commercial foreclosure auctions based on technical arguments. Howard W. Kingsley, a Member of Rosenberg & Estis, and Laura A. Raheb, an Associate, represented the lender, Broome Lender LLC, in obtaining a unanimous reversal of an earlier Supreme Court denial of its motion for summary judgement on its claim to foreclose an $8.1 million mortgage on a commercial condominium unit in SoHo. The issue on appeal concerned the evidence necessary to prove that a successor lender or servicer is, in fact, the holder of the note and mortgage, so that it had “standing” to commence the mortgage foreclosure case. The lower court found that the lender could not establish standing because the allonge, or endorsement, from the initial lender was not stapled to the original note, even though the lender was able to establish standing by other means. On appeal, the Appellate Division decision stated that a lender or servicer can prove standing without producing the allonge firmly affixed to the original note if other ways to establish standing are present. In this case, standing was established because there was a written assignment of mortgage, which also included the assignment of the note to the assignee, although the proof was questionable as to whether the allonge was stapled to the note. “This important decision answers an open question and helps reduce the number of evidentiary and other technical issues that borrowers often raise to create a smoke screen when a loan has been assigned,” said Kingsley. “The ways to prove standing have been decisively clarified by this ruling in

holding that although standing can be established in several ways, only proof of one method is required, even if the proof regarding other methods was insufficient.” The defendant-borrower, Broome Empire LLC, an affiliate of Empire Capital Group, borrowed the principal amount of $8.1 million from Sterling National Bank, which loan was secured by an interest-only mortgage on a property at 430 Broome St. in Manhattan’s SoHo neighborhood that matured on March 31, 2021. The borrower failed to pay off the loan in full by the maturity date. Later that year, Sterling assigned the defaulted loan to the plaintiff-lender. Of significance, the assignment documents included two instruments -- an allonge by which Sterling endorsed the note over to plaintiff, and an assignment of the recorded mortgage, which also assigned the note. Plaintiff, by prior counsel, commenced the mortgage foreclosure action and thereafter moved for summary judgment. However, the lower court denied plaintiff’s motion because the lender did not submit sufficient evidence to establish (a) the loan default, and (b) that it had standing to bring the case because, among other things, it did not prove that the allonge was “firmly affixed” or stapled to the note as required by law. R&E was then retained and appealed from the lower court’s denial of summary judgment. R&E made two primary legal arguments that were not directly made to the lower court. R&E first argued that there was no need to prove the borrower’s default with any affidavits because borrower had, in fact, admitted that it defaulted under the loan in its sworn Hardship Declaration (which many borrowers filed during the COVID-19 pandemic to obtain financial breathing room). The Appellate Division agreed, finding that supporting affidavits were not needed.

PRESS RELEASES

R&E’s second argument was never previously raised in any case in the New York State Courts. R&E argued that standing can be established in different ways, and even if one method was deficient, standing can be proven by another method. The Appellate Division agreed that the lender did not have to prove that the allonge was firmly affixed or stapled to the note because standing was established in another way -- by a written assignment of the note. Specifically, the Appellate Division held the lender established standing “by virtue of the assignment from Sterling to [the lender] through a notarized assignment” and was “not required to establish standing through physical delivery of the note…through the allonges purportedly annexed to the note.” “We are very satisfied that we were able to successfully assist our client to convince the Appellate Division that a court’s focus should be on the documents rather than evidentiary or other technicalities designed as a delay tactic for borrowers,” said Kingsley. “This case sends a strong message to defaulting borrowers that the documents will prevail over their technical arguments, and the common defense of standing will easily be defeated by proper documentation.” The decision paves the way for the note holder to move forward with an auction of the ground floor retail condo at 430 Broome St.

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis Secures First Court Order Preventing Airbnb and Tenant from Illegally Listing Apartment Victory Follows Earlier Rosenberg & Estis TRO Wins & Successfully Prevents Airbnb from Listing Apartment Based on Local Law 18 Featuring Deborah E. Riegel and Cori A. Rosen October 24, 2023 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has secured the first court order prohibiting Airbnb and a New York City tenant from listing the tenant’s apartment on Airbnb. This is the first injunction against Airbnb and one of its hosts since New York City implemented Local Law 18, which prohibits the short-term rental of unregistered apartments. Rosenberg & Estis Members Deborah E. Riegel and Cori A. Rosen represented property owner S&P Associates of New York LLC in the matter before Justice Suzanne Adams of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The injunction follows on the heels of Rosenberg & Estis securing a TRO in this and a separate case before the same judge, granting similar relief. In this case, Justice Adams granted an injunction against Airbnb, as well as Jerome and Kristina Dewald, tenants at 30 West 63rd Street, prohibiting Airbnb from hosting the listing of the apartment. The tenants, who also were prevented from subletting their unit under the terms of their lease, are enjoined from providing access to tourists, transient visitors and/or third parties who are not lawful occupants of the premises. Only the Dewalds and immediate family are permitted to occupy the premises. Local Law 18 allows any property owner to place its entire building on a Prohibited Building list, thereby restricting transient occupancy via Airbnb or other online platforms and requires registration of all individual units not located in a prohibited building. It also precludes the registration of any unit, unless it is contained in a Class “B” building. The State Supreme Court recently dismissed Airbnb’s challenge to the legality of Local Law 18, in which litigation Airbnb conceded its obligation, under Local Law 18 and the resulting regulations, to remove listings until it is able to verify them. Notwithstanding that admission, Airbnb failed to either verify the tenant’s listing or remove it until the action was commenced.

“This decision demonstrates that the court will enforce Local Law 18 as it was intended, so as to protect owners from the commercialization of their properties and residents from a constant stream of transients and tourists, who diminish their quality of life. The court’s definitive ruling is critical to all property owners’ ability to require Airbnb to police its own platform and comply with the law, while also preventing illegal subletting by opportunistic tenants,” said Riegel. “The owner may now pursue damages from both the tenant and Airbnb, establishing a course of action for other property owners whose tenants are using Airbnb illegally in New York City.”

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis Wins Order Denying Tenant’s Effort to Quash Bank Record Subpoena Tenacious approach to technical litigation positions client to prevail in breach-of-contract, use-and-occupancy case Featuring Bradley S. Silverbush October 24, 2023 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. (“R&E”) has successfully defended a motion to quash a subpoena for bank records, short-circuiting a delay tactic by an apartment tenant who clocked up over $60,000 in unpaid rent that he claimed to have paid. Representing the lessor of a co-op apartment at 565 Broadway, Rosenberg & Estis Litigation Member Bradley S. Silverbush won an order denying businessman Jeremy Bernstein’s motion to quash a subpoena of his Bank of America records that would disprove Bernstein’s claims that he had been paying his rent. In denying the motion brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Judge Dakota D. Ramseur noted that the defendant had failed to demonstrate that his bank records were “immaterial” to the action and ordered them to be produced by the bank. The decision supports Silverbush’s decision to go straight to the bank for the records rather than allowing the defendant to produce them after he had claimed they would show he had been paying the $5,000-a-month rent on the apartment. Such a procedure could have lengthened the breach-of-contract and use-and-occupancy case by many months. “If you’re going to try to hide behind bank records, then you better be prepared to produce them,” Silverbush said. “By subpoenaing the records straight from the bank rather than the defendant, we were able to expedite the entire matter, and we remain confident our client will now prevail in recovering thousands of dollars in unpaid rent and removing this unwanted tenant from the apartment.” Bernstein moved into the two-bedroom, 2.5-bath Prince Towers loft in SoHo on December 20, 2018, on a one-year lease at $5,000 per month. After the expiration of the lease term, he continued in possession as a month-to-month tenant paying

the same rent. Court papers reveal that the first hint of trouble began three years later, in May 2022, when he shortchanged his landlord $1,500. That was the start of a year-long drought when he failed to pay any rent at all and, by June of this year, he owed a total of $61,500.00. Bernstein is still living in the loft without paying rent, but not for long, according to Silverbush. “At Rosenberg & Estis, we pride ourselves in utilizing a broad and deep knowledge of the law to protect our clients’ rights,” Silverbush said. “In this case, we quickly circumvented the defendant’s assertion that his bank records would substantiate his claims that rent had been paid, by going straight to the source. Even in technical litigation such as this, tenacious efforts are often the best way to get to the truth.”

PRESS RELEASES

EVENTS

Recent Events at Rosenberg & Estis

EVENTS

NYS PHFL CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES

R&E IN-HOUSE CLE: 2023 RENT STABILIZATION CODE AMENDMENTS

Daniel M. Bernstein and Nicholas Kamillatos, 12.7.23

Zachary J. Rothken, 11.14.23

In this in-house webinar, R&E Members Daniel M. Bernstein and Nicholas Kamillatos addressed the recent amendments to New York State’s Private Housing Finance Law, showing on a high-level how the amendments create valuable opportunities for certain regulated properties to collect voucher payments in excess of stabilized rent and clarify their rent stabilization status and their ability to deregulate.

Zachary J. Rothken presented an in-house CLE addressing DHCR’s amendments to the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC), providing a comprehensive overview of the substantive changes while sharing practical strategies and expectations going forward. When DHCR recently issued various guidance documents (fact sheets, operational bulletins and an FAQ) related to these amendments, Zachary swiftly distributed an industry update email to firm clients which can be read here.

BOMA NEW YORK HOLIDAY LUNCHEON 2023

MATTONE INSTITUTE CLE: CANNABIS COMPLICATIONS IN NYC REAL ESTATE

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 12.1.23

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 11.8.23

R&E Members Cori A. Rosen, Michael T. Carr and Adam R. Sanders attended Building Owners & Managers Association (BOMA) New York’s Annual Holiday Luncheon.

R&E Member Adam Lindenbaum and Associates Harris W. Davidson and John P. Amato presented a virtual CLE, “Cannabis Complications in NYC Real Estate,” as part of the Mattone Institute CLE Series by St. John’s School of Law. The CLE follows Adam and Harris’ cannabis article published in The Real Deal along with their recent cannabis episode on the Inside R&E Podcast.

EVENTS

R&E MEETS WITH LAW STUDENTS AT COLUMBIA’S DIVERSITY EXPO Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 11.1.23

FALL ALUMNI PANEL PRESENTED BY BLS’S REAL ESTATE SOCIETY Alex M. Estis, 10.24.23

R&E Member Theodore J. Metzger and Associate Layla C. Noriega represented the firm at Columbia Law School’s Diversity Expo, highlighting our distinction among Crain’s 2023 Best Places to Work in NYC and membership in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity, while also sharing insights about R&E’s comprehensive real estate practice.

R&E Member Alex M. Estis, a third generation alumnus of Brooklyn Law School, was invited to speak on the Fall Alumni Panel hosted by BLS’s Real Estate Society. Alex spoke to the students about how to advise clients on ever-adapting markets in real estate and the current state of the industry at large. It is an honor and privilege for Alex and R&E to be able to speak to the next generation of lawyers and give advice on how to start their careers.

BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NYC ANNUAL CASINO JAZZ NIGHT

TORCH FOUNDATION ANNUAL CHARITY GOLF OUTING

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 10.30.23

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 10.23.23

Rosenberg & Estis was proud to continue its support of Big Brothers Big Sisters of NYC at this year’s Casino Jazz Night honoring Duncan McCuaig (Senior VP of the U.S. Office Division Leasing team at Brookfield), Jack Irushalmi (President & CEO at Tri Star Construction) and Angelica Sinito (VP at Millennia Companies). Here is a shot taken that night, from left to right, of R&E Members William R. Byers, Jolie E. Meer, Luise A. Barrack and Michael A. Pensabene.

Rosenberg & Estis proudly continued its support of The Torch Foundation at the 24th Annual Charity Golf Outing. Two of the event’s raffle winners included R&E Members Brett B. Theis and Adam R. Sanders!

EVENTS

ROSENBERG & ESTIS ATTORNEY NIGHT OUT

BOMA NEW YORK’S 2023 FALL GOLF INVITATIONAL

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 10.19.23

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., 10.16.23

Rosenberg & Estis attorneys had a great night out at Swingers Crazy Golf recently. Eating, drinking, socializing and playing 9 holes of wacky mini golf was so much fun. Some might say, the night was a hole-in-one! Thank you to all who attended, we look forward to our next outing adventure.

R&E Members Adam R. Sanders, Cori A. Rosen and Michael T. Carr participated in the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)’s 2023 Fall Golf Invitational. Congratulations to Adam who, out of over 80 players, won the putting contest! Adam and Cori were also winners of the raffle at the end of the day – Adam won a new set of clubs, and Cori won a new set of irons.

SEPHARDIC COMMUNITY CENTER GOLF OUTING

GREENPEARL’S NEW YORK MULTIFAMILY SUMMIT

Brett B. Theis, 10.17.23

Zachary J. Rothken, 10.12.23

Rosenberg & Estis proudly sponsored this year’s Sephardic Community Center Golf Outing. Here is a shot of R&E Member Brett B. Theis with his friend and client Scott Friedman who together played in a foursome with other supporters of this event.

As a moderator at this recent multifamily event, Zachary led the discussion with first-hand knowledge of leading issues surrounding rent stabilization in NYC, including the burden of financing and operating costs on building owners, over-regulation and its impact on the free market, and draconian, short-sighted policies which contribute to the City’s growing housing shortage.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. 733 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 T. 212 867 6000 www.rosenbergestis.com

This is published by the law firm Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. It is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion. Such advice may only be given when related to specific fact situations that Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has accepted an engagement as counsel to address. ©2023 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. | ATTORNEY ADVERTISING