R&E Client Newsletter - November 2019

QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER

REAL ESTATE BEGINS WITH November 2019 | Vol. 8

IN THIS

2 - 3: R&E FEATURE STORY

34: HONORS & AWARDS

4 - 17: PUBLISHED WORKS

BY R&E ATTORNEYS

35: ADVERTISEMENTS

18 - 25: PRESS RELEASES 28 - 33: EVENTS

36: GIVING BACK 37: MORE INFORMATION

Message from Eric S. Orenstein, Member at R&E:

“

We invite you to catch up on another quarter of industry-leading success at Rosenberg & Estis. Through questions and uncertainty surrounding HSTPA of 2019, R&E has remained a powerful and reliable source for our clients and New York City’s real estate industry as a whole.”

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. ©2019 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. | ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

FEATURE STORY

FEATURE STORY June 2019 Bill Amends Article 7-C of Loft Law - More Buildings and Units are Now Eligible Jason R. Davidson Member, Litigation

Loft Law changes you might have missed following HSTPA enactment

By Jason R. Davidson || November 2019

O

n June 25, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill amending Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (the “Loft Law), expanding the number of buildings and units now eligible for coverage (the “2019 Amendments”). The 2019 Amendment did not gain much attention, as they were largely overshadowed by the enactment of the HSTPA and its wide-ranging impact on rent-stabilized buildings. However, by removing the limitations on coverage imposed by the 2010 amendments to the Loft Law (the “2010 Amendments”) and creating a new window period for coverage eligibility, the 2019 Amendments will potentially impact hundreds of existing loft buildings, as well as hundreds of new buildings that were not previously eligible for Loft Law coverage.

Under the 2010 Amendments, which became effective on June 21, 2010, buildings that lacked a Multiple Dwelling Law § 301 residential certificate of occupancy 2 || November 2019

on the effective date, which were at one time used for manufacturing, commercial, or warehouse purposes and were occupied by three or more families living independently from one another for 12 consecutive months between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009, became eligible for Loft Law coverage, provided that the units (1) had at least one window opening onto a street, lawful yard or court, (2) were at least 550 square feet in area, (3) were not located in a basement or cellar, (4) were not located in an industrial business zone other than Greenpoint/ Williamsburg, North Brooklyn and certain areas of the Long Island City’s industrial business zone and (5) were not located in a building that contained certain inherently incompatible use listed in Use Groups 15 through 18 of the Zoning Resolution. In 2013, the Legislature softened the 2010 Amendments by reducing the size of eligibility units from 550 square feet to 400 square feet which, in turn, increased the number of units

FEATURE STORY

eligible for coverage. The 2013 Amendments also set a deadline by which landlords and tenants had to file a registration and coverage application in order to qualify for Loft Law protection.

The 2019 Amendments significantly alter the restrictions implemented by the 2010 and 2013 Amendments. The 2019 Amendments abolish the filing deadline for the 2008/2009 window period. Accordingly, any unit that was eligible for coverage under the 2008-2009 window period that missed the filing deadline can now file for coverage. The 2019 Amendments remove the window requirement, meaning that units that do not meet the minimum light and air requirements of applicable zoning and building codes are now eligible for coverage. As such, the amendments place the onus of legalizing loft units that do not have adequate light and air on the owner during the legalization process.

In addition, units located in a basement are now also eligible for coverage. This shifts the

burden to the owner to determine how to legalize units that otherwise would not qualify for residential use. Under the 2019 Amendments, inherently incompatible uses are now limited to uses within Use Group 18 which creates an actual risk of harm that cannot be reasonably mitigated.

Furthermore, the maximum civil penalty for the failure to comply with the Loft Law was increased from $17,500 to $25,000.

Most significantly, however, the 2019 Amendments established a new window 2015/2016 period for eligibility. Specifically, units located in commercial, manufacturing and warehouse buildings, which were residentially occupied by three or more families living independently for 12 consecutive months between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016, are eligible for Loft Law coverage, provided the other elements of coverage are satisfied.

Accordingly, the 2019 Amendments have far-reaching implications by removing restrictions

for coverage eligibility and establishing a new coverage window period.

In addition to the legislative changes contained in the 2019 Amendments, the Loft Board is in the process of amending its rules to address issues of coverage, the requirements for protected occupancy status and the rules governing legalization.

These changes, like the 2019 Amendments, will significantly affect owners of buildings subject to the Loft Law. Of course, we will not know the true effect of the rule amendments until they are promulgated.

November 2019 || 3

PUBLISHED WORKS

Don’t miss deadline for Opportunity Zone tax benefits Real Estate Weekly || October 30, 2019

Adam R. Sanders Member, Transactions

As seen in the LEGAL VIEWPOINTS section of Real Estate Weekly

T

he clock is ticking on a major benefit of the Opportunity Zone program.

On December 31, 2019, the 15 percent capital gain tax discount benefit under the Opportunity Zone regulations expires as the seven-year timeframe necessary to receive such 15 percent capital gain tax discount benefit by the year 2026 becomes unattainable.

This will leave the remaining benefits of the Opportunity Zone program for tax payers at a 10 percent capital gain tax discount benefit on the taxes to be paid in 2026 on capital gains invested into Qualified Opportunity Zone Funds (QOZF) and an exemption on any new gain realized from the investment on the capital gain initially invested after 10 years.

While the loss of the five percent capital gain tax discount benefit may seem small in comparison to the overall benefits, it is still a third of the upfront deferral benefit, and it has taxpayer investors on the hunt for QOZFs with viable projects in Opportunity Zones.

4 || November 2019

The short time frame for capital gain taxpayers to find QOZFs with viable projects in Qualified Opportunity Zones has possible investors concerned about their ability to invest their capital gains and do proper due diligence on QOZFs with viable projects in Opportunity Zones.

A couple guiding principles for choosing the right QOZF remain the same as from the onset: 1. Taxpayers with capital gains, or that are expecting capital gains before the end of 2019, need to search for QOZFs with viable shovel-ready real estate projects and a strong track record. While there is an excess of QOZFs with real estate projects, fewer than expected are offering shovel-ready projects with investor-friendly returns.

Even though the regulations provide for a few tolling/safe harbor time periods, each day that a shovel is not in the ground is a day of concern over the viability from the taxpayer.

2. Project First. As the QOZF market has matured, certain large funds have settled

PUBLISHED WORKS

into charging high fees that put greater stress on the increased value by year 10 of the investment, thereby almost eliminating the tax savings gained in 2026 when the capital gain tax deferral ends and possibly at the 10year point if the actual increased value of the projects fail to reach the anticipated increased value projections that the investment is based on. This tightening of possible realized gain reinforces the fact that investors shall look to invest in the project or a pipeline of projects and not just a QOZF that will look for projects.

As a result, developers with shovel-ready, or close to shovel-ready, projects in Opportunity Zones make the safest investments as QOZFs, and, in fact, several have already been busy restructuring their projects to accommodate already-interested investors and new investors.

However, since these deal structures can vary in complexity, it remains vital that investors engage properly experienced professionals who know what questions to ask and what documents to review.

for the taxpayers remain availStill, if investors and QOZFs able, this date shall serve as miss 2019, not to worry, there a reminder that time is ticking are practical benefits that make away on the Opportunity Zone this program a unique and valu- program, a program that does able tool for investors which not just provide tax benefits to should be noted. investments but also aims to provide development, jobs and First, since a QOZF can be any income for low-income commuinvestment vehicle organized as nities in the Opportunity Zones. a corporation or partnership for the purpose of investing in Qualified Opportunity Zone Property, the barrier to entry is low and permits investors of all sizes, not just larger institutional investors, REITs, Insurance Companies and funds, to find or create their own QOZF in order to utilize the benefits of the Opportunity Zone program.

Second, with less of a tax benefit deferral, QOZFs that are charging high fees may have to decrease their fees to generate the amount of investment that they have modeled, thereby, providing the same effective return/benefit to the investor at a lower cost.

Overall, on December 31, 2019, there will be a loss of the five percent capital gain tax discount benefit. While most of the Opportunity Zone program benefits November 2019 || 5

PUBLISHED WORKS

NYC Bill Continues Expansion Of Commercial Tenant Rights Adam J. Lindenbaum Member, Litigation

Peter B. Kane

Associate, Litigation

As seen in the Expert Analysis seciton of Law 360

Law 360 || October 16, 2019

O

n Sept. 25, the New York City Council passed Introductory Bill 1410-B. Introduced by Bronx City Council member Vanessa L. Gibson, 1410B seeks to expand and strengthen the existing protections against commercial tenant harassment as codified in New York City Administrative Code Sections 22-901 and what follows, which have been part of New York City law since June 28, 2016.

1410-B will officially be enacted into law upon the mayor’s signature, or by being returned by the mayor unsigned and without a veto. Upon its enactment, 1410-B will become effective immediately.

1410-B broadens the current definition of “commercial tenant harassment” to include an act or omission by or on behalf of a landlord that would reasonably cause a commercial tenant to vacate their property or surrender or waive any rights under their lease or other rental agreement. The proposed addition of “would reasonably” cause replaces the existing language of “is intended to” cause.

The bill expands the current provisions of law to include the following additional categories of acts or omissions as part of the definition of commercial tenant harassment: (1) threats against a commercial tenant based on a person’s actual

6 || November 2019

or perceived age, race creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, caregiver status, uniformed service, sexual orientation, alienage or citizenship status, status as a victim of domestic violence, status as a victim of a sex offenses or stalking; (2) requests for identifying documentation that would disclose the citizenship status of a commercial tenant; and (3) unreasonable refusal to cooperate with a commercial tenant’s permitted repairs or construction activities.

Such new categories of harassment are in addition to the previously existing grounds that include the use of force or implied threats, causing interruptions or discontinuances of essential services, commencing frivolous court proceedings against the tenant, removing a commercial tenant’s property, removing the entrance door to the tenant’s premises or otherwise tampering with the entrance or locks, preventing access to the premises to tenant or its invitees, commencing unnecessary construction or repairs to or around the covered property, or engaging in other repeated or enduring acts or omissions that substantially interfere with the tenant’s business.

Under the 2016 version of the commercial tenant harassment law, tenants maintain a private right of action for harassment in any court of component jurisdiction. Such courts

PUBLISHED WORKS

maintain the authority to issue restraining orders against further harassment (among other kinds of injunctive or equitable relief), and to award the tenant compensatory and punitive damages including attorney fees and costs.

1410-B does not amend such private remedies, yet greatly expands the civil monetary penalties the courts may impose by increasing the penalty range for a finding of harassment from $1,000-$10,000 currently to $10,000-$50,000.

1410-B further authorizes courts to issue an order directing the New York City Department of Buildings not to approve certain categories of proposed construction documents for the property (or to renew existing work permits) where the landlord is found to have engaged in commercial tenant harassment.

Such court-ordered directive to the DOB can be for a period of time determined to be appropriate given the facts and circumstances of the harassment.

With respect to such a court-ordered DOB directive, 1410-B incorporates the defined term “covered categories of work,” which includes: (1) demolition of all or part of the property; (2) change of use or occupancy of all or part of the property; and (3) change to the layout, configuration or location of any portion of the property.

However, the term “covered categories of work” expressly excludes the following categories or work: (1) work conducted to make a portion of the property accessible to people with disabilities; (2) work conducted solely to remediate hazardous or

impending hazardous conditions, or to protect public health and safety; (3) work performed pursuant to a lease or other agreement executed prior to such court order; (4) work performed pursuant to an agreement with the commercial tenant; and (5) other categories of work excluded by DOB rules.

The provisions of 1410-B have no bearing on the current commercial tenant harassment laws that specifically provide that a commercial tenant is not relieved of its obligations to pay rent for which it is otherwise liable by reason of the harassment. Any monetary remedy that may be awarded to a commercial tenant victimized by harassment shall be reduced by any amount of delinquent rent or other sums due to the landlord.

The impact of the increased administrative penalties and the ability for a complaining commercial tenant to halt a landlord’s construction pursuant to 1410-B could have wide-reaching implications for New York City real estate owners. On the one hand, a tenant’s ability to halt a landlord’s construction at the subject building provides tremendous leverage to a tenant complaining of harassment. For instance, an owner of real property that is a current or prospective development site should recognize the impact that harassment of a commercial tenant could have upon its construction schedule if halted at the DOB level.

On the other hand, the law leaves the implementation of such remedies for harassment to the overburdened New York state and city courts. Commercial tenants with a harassment claim will need to nav-

igate the backlogged judiciary and expend legal fees to get to trial just like any other litigant.

The real effect of 1410-B will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and it is noteworthy that 1410-B did not go so far to compel a commercial landlord to renew the tenancy of a harassed tenant similar to the protections afforded to residential tenants under Real Property Law Section 223-b.

Furthermore, an earlier version of the bill, Bill 1410-A, that was being entertained by the City Council in early 2019 included an additional requirement that landlords first obtain a certification of no harassment, or CONH, from all commercial tenants prior to obtaining any DOB work permits for renovation or demolition work at a particular property. The CONH requirement was dropped from the final version of 1410-B, and is not part of the proposed law awaiting signature by the mayor.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments of 1410-B include new kinds of commercial tenant harassment and substantially increase the monetary fines and administrative penalties that can be levied against landlords and their property managers or agents. Given the current political climate following the New York State Legislature’s broad expansion of tenants’ rights by enacting the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act in June, it is highly likely that 1410-B will be enacted into law.

November 2019 || 7

PUBLISHED WORKS

HSTPA’S Impact on Owner’s Proceeding Warren A. Estis Member, Litigation

Michael E. Feinstein Member, Litigation

As seen in the New York Law Journal

In their Landlord-Tenant column, Warren Estis and Michael Feinstein discuss ‘Fried v.

Galindo,’ where the court ruled that the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) applies to a pending owner’s use proceeding.

New York Law Journal || October 1, 2019

T

he Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), effective as of June 14, 2019, made significant changes to both the rent laws and the laws governing landlord-tenant proceedings in New York State.

Among the many significant changes, Part I, §2, which amended Administrative Code of the City of New York § 26-511[c][9][b], provides that no rent stabilization code can be enacted unless it provides that no owner may refuse to renew a lease except: “where he or she seeks to recover possession of one dwelling unit because of immediate and compelling necessity for his or her own personal use and occupancy as his or her primary residence or for the use and occupancy of a member of his or her immediate family as his or her primary residence, provided, however, that this subparagraph shall permit recovery of only one dwelling unit.”

This section of the Administrative Code had previously provided that an owner could refuse to renew a lease “where he or she seeks to recover possession of one or more dwelling units for his or her own personal use and occupancy as his or her primary residence (emphasis supplied)” and/or for the use or occupancy of a member of his or her immediate family as his or her primary residence.

8 || November 2019

‘Fried v. Galindo’ In a recent decision from the Civil Court, Kings County in Fried v. Galindo, NYLJ 1564952675NY6633418 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co, July 31, 2019) (Fried), the court (Judge David Harris) was faced with the question as to whether the HSTPA’s amendment of the above Administrative Code section applies to a pending proceeding concerning an owner’s notice of intent not to renew and to terminate the tenancy (“Golub notice”) which was delivered to the tenant long before the HSTPA’s effective date. The court held that the amendment was applicable and, as a result, dismissed the proceeding.

In Fried, the owner had delivered a Golub notice to the tenant which expired on April 30, 2018, which advised that the owner sought to recover “all apartments in the building” to covert it into a single family home to be occupied as owner’s primary residence. After numerous delays in the proceeding, the tenant moved, after the enactment of the HSTPA, to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the amendment to the HSTPA, which now permits an owner to recover only one dwelling unit for his or her personal use, rendered the Golub notice defective and required the dismissal of the proceeding.

In arguing that the HSTPA applied to the pending proceeding, the

PUBLISHED WORKS

tenant referred to Part I, §5 of the HSTPA, which provides that “[t]his act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to any tenant in possession at or after the time it takes effect, regardless of whether the landlord’s application for an order, refusal to renew a lease, or refusal to extend or renew a tenancy took place before this act shall have taken effect.”

in possession at or after the time it takes effect, and applies to such tenants whether or not the landlord’s actions occurred before or after its enactment.” The court stated that “the plain language of the statute explicitly addresses its applicability to all tenants in possession at the time of its enactment, without regard to when petitioner’s refusal to renew the lease occurred.”

The owner maintained that the HSTPA’s amendment to the Administrative Code at issue was not applicable to the pending proceeding, and applied only prospectively, because the HSTPA was “speaking directly to the processing of applications and notices to terminate a tenant’s lease for personal use, not applications and notices to terminate a tenant’s lease that have been contested and already brought as proceedings in court.” In support of his contention that the HSTPA section was only to apply prospectively, the owner relied on Duell v. Condon, 84 NY2d 773 (1995), where the Court of Appeals held that whether a statute is to be applied prospectively or retroactively generally requires determination of legislative intent.

The court also observed that the “Rent Stabilization Law is remedial in nature, and subject to broad interpretation to effect its purposes.”

It found that where, as in the case before it, “the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no reason to judicially engraft anything upon the ordinary meaning of the words employed therein.”

Thus, the court concluded that the amendment to the HSTPA precluded the owner’s recovery of possession of all apartments in the building, which was the stated purpose in the Golub notice, thereby requiring the dismissal of the proceeding.

The court held that the HSTPA amendment was applicable and therefore required the dismissal of the proceeding. In rejecting the owner’s interpretation as to the applicability of the HSTPA, the court stated that the section of Part I governing the effective date and applicability “specifically mandates the immediate effect of its provisions and their applicability to any tenant

Conclusion The HSTPA has made hugely significant changes to both the rent laws and landlord-tenant relations in the state of New York, and it goes without saying that there will be many issues that will need to be resolved by the courts regarding the statute’s applicability and meaning. As decisions are issued, we will try in this column to keep the landlord-tenant bar apprised of significant developments in the interpretation of this historic new body of law.

November 2019 || 9

PUBLISHED WORKS

2019 Tenant Protection Act: The pendulum has swung too far Real Estate Weekly || September 25, 2019

Luise A. Barrack Managing Member

As seen in the LEGAL VIEWPOINTS section of Real Estate Weekly

C

learly, there has been nothing as controversial for decades in New York’s real estate community than the passage of the new rent laws titled the “Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019.” After passage of the new rent laws, whichever side of the aisle you were sitting on, a stunned city read and re-read the laws, either despondent or gleeful. The real estate community tried to glean any evidence that the legislature of New York understood the workings of New York City’s real estate market. Many thought that the proposed legislation simply could not pass; others reasoned that the legislation was precisely what had been promised by the Democratic majority’s newfound power, and then some, and that it would be signed into law - even with its conceded errors.

Real estate industry groups looked at the legislation with an eye towards challenging it as excessive and an unjustified taking of private property. On July 15, 2019, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District by a group, including the Rent Stabilization Association (RSA), the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP), and a handful of private landlords, challenging the new rent laws on the basis of their being an unjustified taking of private property. The plaintiffs alleged that the legislation has not met its intended goal of providing affordable housing, that it benefits people who are not entitled to its protections, and that the laws are so restrictive as to constitute a taking.

The industry tried to educate those in power to the consequences, unintended and otherwise, to what they had done. Even advocates of the changes recognized, whether tacitly or off the record, that the pendulum had swung too far and that this legislation would result in unintended and deleterious consequences to the city.

Once the new rules were set, of necessity, owners adjusted to the new normal by

10 || November 2019

licking their wounds and trying to figure out how to operate in the black despite costs, including real estate taxes, that will significantly outpace the income they can derive from their real estate assets. Different reactive scenarios have been considered by landlords including holding apartments in their portfolios vacant due to the artificially low cap of $15,000 over three years that a landlord can spend on apartment improvements, which will result in a maximum rent increase of $89.00 a month. Certainly, there will, of necessity, be a pullback in expenditures made in New York real estate.

In the meantime, adding insult to injury, the courts have been rendering decisions, consistent with the new laws, increasing the liability of landlords on overcharge claims by not only two additional years but by ascertaining that there was an unexplained increase 20 years ago that will result in treble damages, whether or not they were the landlord, and a roll back of rent back to the amount being tendered two decades prior.

The collective results of the foregoing have been disastrous to mixed use real estate.

The appraisals of value of mixed-use property in New York have reflected the changes: The value of mixed-use assets has been reduced, and owners have had to adjust sellers’ expectations and concomitantly, asking prices, for New York residential real estate. However, there is a sense that, at least, the certainty of knowing versus the apprehension of worrying has provided some succor to real estate. And there is some hope that someone in the administration has some cognition of the possible fallout from the new laws. Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development has acknowledged the rub between providing stability for renters and has been quoted as noting that this is a lesson to us that you don’t want to swing too far in one direction, because it is likely to swing back. And you won’t like it when it does.

PUBLISHED WORKS

“

Over the years, the firm has actively participated in ‘green’ workplace initiatives. We installed motion light sensors and replaced all light fixtures with LED bulbs to reduce our electric consumption and implemented a paper light workplace. Earlier this year, we significantly reduced our usage of single-use plastics by switching to reusable Swell bottles. On that note, we are delighted to announce that R&E is transitioning to all ECO friendly products for food and beverage use. This means that all cold and hot cups, lids, paper towels, plates, bowls, and cutlery that we use will be made from post-consumer recycled plastics and will be commercially compostable. Thank you all for helping to reduce our carbon footprint.”

-Luise A. Barrack Managing Member

November 2019 || 11

PUBLISHED WORKS

Courts Tackle HSTPA Issues Warren A. Estis Member, Litigation

Jeffrey Turkel

Member, Administration

As seen in the New York Law Journal

On June 14, the New York State Legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act. Notwithstanding the “philosophical policy debates as to the wisdom of the statute,” courts must now go about the “mundane business” of applying the statute to new and pending cases. In their Rent Regulation column, Warren Estis and Jeffrey Turkel discuss some of these recent cases.

New York Law Journal || September 3, 2019

T

he New York State Legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (L. 2019, ch 36) (HSTPA) on June 14, 2019. Notwithstanding the raging philosophical policy debates as to the wisdom of the statute, courts must now go about the mundane business of applying the statute to new and pending cases. Some of those recent decisions are discussed below.

When is an Overcharge Complaint “Pending?”

HSTPA Part F amends RSL §26-516, which governs claims of rent overcharge. Section 7 of Part F states in relevant part: This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to any claims pending or filed on or after such date.

The question of when an overcharge claim is “pending” was addressed in 315 Jefferson LLC v. Antonio, 2019 WL 3884587 (Civ. Ct., Kings County).

There, in response to the landlord’s non-payment proceeding, the tenant moved for summary judgment on his counterclaim for rent overcharge. On May 9, 2019, Housing Court Judge Kenneth Barany denied the tenant’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the landlord summary judgment on the rent overcharge issue.

Following passage of the HSTPA, the tenant moved for renewal. The tenant asserted that under the expanded lookback period set forth in the HSTPA, the scope of inquiry had widened with respect to tenant’s rejected claim that the

12 || November 2019

landlord had engaged in a “fraudulent scheme.”

Judge Barany denied renewal in a decision issued on Aug. 7, 2019, holding that the tenant’s counterclaim for rent overcharge “was not pending at the time of the HSTPA enactment, having already been dismissed by this court.”

The court added: To hold otherwise would give the HSTPA unintended retroactive effect notwithstanding that the prior decision of this court was decided based on the law existing at the time.

The same issue arose in 400 E 58 Owner LLC v. Herrnson, L&T Index No. 771000/18 (Civ. Ct. New York County), also decided on Aug. 7, 2019. In 400 E 58, the Court (Ortiz, H.C.J.) dismissed the tenant’s counterclaim for overcharge on June 13, 2019, the day before the HSTPA was enacted. As in 315 Jefferson, the tenant moved for renewal, arguing that the HSTPA’s expanded lookback period allowed the tenant to establish his overcharge claim. The court denied the tenant’s motion, stating: The changes to the rent overcharge provisions in the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 relate to claims pending or filed after the effective day of the statute (June 14, 2019). This Court dismissed the ‘rent overcharge’ issue in a decision dated June 13, 2019.

The court reached a different conclusion in SF 878 E. 176th LLC v. Grullon,

PUBLISHED WORKS

2019 WL 2896677 (Civ. Ct. Bronx County). There, the landlord and the pro-se tenant settled a non-payment proceeding on June 11, 2018 pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation, whereby the tenant agreed to pay certain sums.

The landlord thereafter sought to restore the proceeding to the court’s calendar based on the tenant’s failure to comply with the stipulation. Additional stipulations followed.

Following the enactment of the HSTPA, the tenant (now represented by counsel) moved to vacate the stipulation, arguing that she believed that she had been overcharged. She also sought to amend her answer. The landlord, inter alia, argued that the stipulation should be enforced.

The court (Garland, H.C.J.), vacated the stipulation, although there was no evidence of collusion, mistake, accident, fraud, or surprise. Instead, the court appeared to hold that based on the HSTPA, the tenant’s overcharge complaint—which was now more viable—should be determined on the merits: Under the law as it stood before June 14, 2019, although the charging of a preferential rent may have permitted Respondent to look back beyond the four years preceding her complaint of an overcharge, this Court had questions about whether Respondent had met her burden of showing a fraudulent scheme to deregulate the apartment which would then allow further inquiry. The law has changed. Courts are now being given greater latitude in investigating claims of overcharge such that a showing of fraud is not necessary so long as, all factors considered, a party claiming a rent overcharge can show the unreliability of the rent records.

There is no way to reconcile this case with 315 Jefferson and 400 E 58 Owner. In SF 878 E. 176th, the tenant’s

claim of rent overcharge ceased to be “pending” when the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation under existing law. Absent fraud or any similar factor, it is difficult to understand how a change in law one year after a so-ordered stipulation warrants its vacatur.

The case of Arnold v. 4-6 Bleecker Street LLC, 2019 WL 3891175 (Sup. Ct. New York County), shows just how devastating the applicability provisions of the HSTPA can be. In Arnold, the tenants commenced an action in 2013 seeking (1) a declaration that they were rent-stabilized; and (2) damages for rent overcharge. The four tenants were able to establish overcharges of $299,993.76, $333,405.72, $37,548.38, and $111,349.06.

Unfortunately for the landlord, the case was still pending on the enactment date of the HSTPA. Supreme Court held that based on the new statute, additional damages were warranted: However, with the recent passage of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), the amounts due to plaintiffs must be amended. As required by CPLR 4511(a), this court takes judicial notice of the public statutes of New York. The HSTPA amended Section 26-516(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York to expand the overcharge period from four (4) to six (6) years before the filing of an overcharge complaint, and the treble damages period to also six (6) years. As the HSTPA was passed during the pendency of this matter, Plaintiff may recalculate the amounts owed on the overcharge and treble damages amounts” (internal citations omitted).

A more interesting scenario arises where DHCR denied a tenant’s overcharge complaint prior to enactment of the HSTPA, but the tenant’s Article 78 proceeding was pending on the

enactment date. Following the logic in 315 Jefferson and 400 E 58 Owner, the argument could be made that DHCR’s determination dismissed and terminated the tenant’s overcharge complaint; what was “pending” on the enactment date was not an overcharge complaint—which asks a tribunal to determine whether there has been an overcharge—but an Article 78 petition, which asks whether DHCR’s determination was arbitrary and capricious.

There are no cases yet in this regard, but it is inevitable that courts will be called upon to determine the issue.

When is an Owner Occupancy Proceeding Pending?

In Fried v. Lopez, 2019 WL 3519712 (Civ. Ct., Kings County), the applicability issue arose in the context of an owner occupancy proceeding commenced in 2018. The landlord sought to recover the tenant’s apartment to further the landlord’s plan to recover all apartments in the building so as to convert it to a single-family home.

At the time the landlord commenced the proceeding, RSL §26-511(c)(9)(b) authorized an owner to recover “one or more dwelling units” for personal use.

Section 2 of Part I of the HSTPA, however, limited a landlord’s recovery to “one unit.” Section 5 of Part I provided that “[t]his act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to any tenant in possession at or after the time it takes effect, regardless of whether the landlord’s application for an order, refusal to renew a lease or refusal to extend or renew a tenancy took place before this act shall have taken effect.”

After the enactment, the tenant in Fried moved to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The landlord opposed, arguing that the amendment was prospective only, and that the pre-HSTPA version of the statute should govern. The court (Harris, H.C.J.) dismissed the proceeding, holding that the landlord’s position was untenable in light of the plain language of Part I, Section 2.

November 2019 || 13

PUBLISHED WORKS

Yellowstone Waivers are Enforceable Real Estate Weekly || August 7, 2019

Michael E. Feinstein Member, Litigation

As seen in the LEGAL VIEWPOINTS section of Real Estate Weekly

C

ounsel who practice in the area of commercial landlord-tenant litigation are surely familiar with the fundamental procedural device known as the “Yellowstone injunction.”

A Yellowstone injunction tolls the time to cure under a notice to cure or notice of default served by a landlord on the tenant, so that the tenant can litigate the merits of the alleged defaults and retain the ability to cure if the court ultimately rules that the tenant is in default of the lease.

This article addresses an important decision which was handed down this year in the area of Yellowstone practice. In 159 MP Corp. v, Redbridge Bedford, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03526 (May 7, 2019) (“159 MP Corp.”), the New York Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) ruled that a commercial tenant may, in its lease, waive its right to bring a declaratory judgment action with respect to the lease. As such, because a Yellowstone injunction requires the existence of an underlying action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether the tenant is in default under the lease, such a waiver precludes the tenant from obtaining a Yellowstone injunction.

The facts in 159 MP Corp. are as follows: The plaintiffs were the tenants under two, 20-year commercial leases demising to plaintiffs 13,000 square feet in a building located in Brooklyn to operate a Foodtown supermarket.

Most importantly, each lease contained a rider, which included a provision stating as follows: “Tenant waives its right to bring a declaratory judgment action with respect to any provision

14 || November 2019

of this Lease or with respect to any notice sent pursuant to the provisions of this Lease… [I] t is the intention of the parties hereto that their disputes be adjudicated via summary proceedings.”

The landlord sent notices to cure to the tenants alleging various defaults under the leases and providing the tenants with 15 days to cure in order to avoid lease termination. The tenants commenced a declaratory judgment action in Supreme Court and moved for a Yellowstone injunction to toll the time to cure. The landlord answered the complaint and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, maintaining that the action, and thus the motion for Yellowstone relief, was barred by the waiver provision in the leases. The tenants argued in response that the waiver clause was unenforceable.

Supreme Court denied the tenants’ motion for a Yellowstone injunction and the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed (with one Justice dissenting), holding that the declaratory judgment waiver was enforceable. The Second Department granted the tenants leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, in its majority opinion, affirmed, holding that the declaratory judgment waiver was enforceable and not violative of public policy.

The Court rejected the tenants’ argument that the declaratory judgment waiver was void as against public policy. The Court observed that freedom of contract is a “deeply rooted” public

PUBLISHED WORKS

policy of this state and that “our courts have long deemed the enforcement of commercial contracts according to the terms adopted by the parties to be a pillar of the common law.”

The Court held that in the case before it, the declaratory judgment waiver was “clear and unambiguous, was adopted by sophisticated parties at negotiating arm’s length, and does not violate the type of public policy interest that would outweigh the strong public policy in favor of freedom of contract.” The Court went on to explain that “there is simply nothing in our contemporary statutory, constitutional, or decisional law indicating that the interest in access to declaratory judgment actions or, more generally, to a full suite of litigation options without limitation, is so weighty and fundamental that it cannot be waived by sophisticated, counseled parties in a commercial lease.”

judgment waivers into their commercial leases, and that such waivers will become more commonplace. It will of course depend on, among other things, the relative bargaining power of the parties, and the sophistication of counsel, as to whether such waivers are ultimately included in a lease. It remains to be seen how widespread such waivers will become in future commercial lease transactions.

In addition, the Court found that it was “critical” that the declaratory judgment waiver clause did not “preclude access to the courts” and “permits plaintiffs to raise defenses to allegations of default in summary proceedings in Civil Court…”. The Court further noted that the waiver did not impair the tenants’ ability to seek damages based on breach of contract or tort theories. The Court observed that “despite the waiver clause, the judicial review available to plaintiffs is more generous than that available to parties whose contracts contain arbitration clauses -- yet we routinely enforce arbitration clauses.”

Conclusion There is little doubt that many landlords will now attempt to add declaratory November 2019 || 15

PUBLISHED WORKS

Court Finds Lease Allowed Yellowstone Motion ‘After’ Cure Period Expired Warren A. Estis Member, Litigation

Michael E. Feinstein Member, Litigation

As seen in the New York Law Journal

In their Landlord Tenant column, Warren Estis and Michael Feinstein discuss “255 Butler Associates, LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC,” a “highly unusual case” where, despite the clear rule stating that an application for Yellowstone relief must be made “prior to the expiration of the cure period set forth in the lease and the landlord’s notice to cure,” the Appellate Division, Second Department upheld the Supreme Court’s granting of a Yellowstone motion which had been made after the expiration of the cure period in the notice to cure.

16 || November 2019

New York Law Journal || August 6, 2019

T

his column has recently spent considerable time addressing various issues surrounding the fundamental procedural device known as the “Yellowstone injunction” under New York landlord-tenant law. Established by the Court of Appeals in First Nat. Stores, Inc. v. Yellowstone Shopping Center, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 630 (1968), a Yellowstone injunction tolls the time to cure under a notice to cure or notice of default, so that the tenant can litigate the merits of the alleged defaults and retain the ability to cure if the court ultimately rules that the tenant is in default of the lease.

Under the Yellowstone doctrine, all a tenant need show in order to obtain such relief is that it: (1) holds a commercial lease; (2) received from the landlord either a notice of default, a notice to cure, or a threat of termination of the lease; (3) requested injunctive relief prior to the expiration of the cure period in the notice to cure; and (4) is prepared and maintains the ability to cure the alleged default by any means short of vacating the premises. Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Ave. Associates, 93 N.Y.2d 508 (1999).

An Unusual Case With respect to the third prong set forth above, the courts have consistently enforced the rule that an application for Yellowstone relief must be made “prior to the expiration of the cure period set forth in the lease and the landlord’s notice to cure.” Riesenburger Props, LLLP v. Pi Assoc., LLC, 155 AD3d 984, 985 (2d Dept. 2017), quoting Korova

Milk Bar of White Plains, Inc. v. PRE Props., LLC, 70 AD3d 646, 647 (2010); KB Gallery, LLC v. 875 W. 181 Owners Corp., 76 AD3d 909, 909 (1st Dept.

2010).

Despite this clear rule, in an unusual case that was decided in June 2019 by the Appellate Division, Second Department—255 Butler Associates, LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC, 173 AD3d 649 (2d Dept. 2019)—the court upheld the Supreme Court’s granting of a Yellowstone motion which had been made after the expiration of the cure period in the notice to cure, but before the expiration of the termination notice. The court found that because the subject lease provided that the notice of termination (delivered after the expiration of the notice to cure) was required to provide the tenant with an additional period to cure prior to the expiration of the termination notice, such permitted the tenant to move for Yellowstone relief after the expiration of the notice to cure, so long as it was made prior to the expiration of the termination notice.

In Butler, the landlord had delivered a notice to cure to the tenant, demanding that the tenant cure all violations of the lease on or before Sept. 1, 2015 and, upon the failure to do so, the landlord would have the right to terminate the lease. Because the tenant failed to cure within the cure period in the notice to cure, the landlord delivered a “notice of termination of tenancy,” which stated that the tenant failed to cure all of the alleged defaults and that the lease would terminate as of Sept. 30, 2015.

On Sept. 22, 2015—three weeks after

PUBLISHED WORKS

the expiration of the notice to cure but prior to the expiration of the termination notice—the tenant moved for a Yellowstone injunction. The landlord opposed, maintaining that the motion was untimely under well-established law because it had been made after the expiration of the notice to cure. Supreme Court granted the motion on the ground that the motion was timely because the lease provided for an additional period to cure after the notice to termination is served. The landlord appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed. The court observed that under Section 24.1(b) of the subject lease, if the tenant failed to observe and perform any provision of the lease, the landlord was permitted to serve a 30-day notice on the tenant requiring that the tenant cure the default. That is exactly what the landlord did in Butler, in having delivered the notice to cure to the tenant which expired on Sept. 1, 2015.

What was unusual about the lease in Butler, however, was Section 24.2 thereof, which provided that if the landlord served a notice of termination of the lease following the expiration of the notice to cure, “the lease would expire after the time set forth in the notice of termination elapsed, during which time the plaintiff would have an opportunity to cure the alleged default prior to the expiration date set forth in the notice of termination.”

As such, based upon the language of Section 24.2 of the lease, which permitted the tenant an additional cure period prior to the expiration of a notice of termination, the court found that the termination notice had to be deemed an additional “notice to cure,” and thus

the motion for a Yellowstone injunction, made prior to the expiration of the termination notice, was timely. The court stated: Given that the language of Article 24 provided for two separate cure periods in Section 24.1 and Section 24.2, under these circumstances, the notice of termination dated September 11, 2015, must be deemed, under Article 24 of the subject lease, a notice to cure the plaintiff’s alleged default in failing to comply with the prior July 27, 2015 notice. Inasmuch as the plaintiff moved for a Yellowstone injunction prior to September 30, 2015, the date set by the defendant in the September 11, 2015 notice as the end date by which the plaintiff had to cure its default, the plaintiff’s motion was timely.

tional time to cure after service of the notice of termination. To be certain that the motion will not be deemed untimely, one should always move for Yellowstone relief prior to the expiration of the cure period in the notice to cure.

Conclusion Butler presents the highly unusual case of a lease providing that the notice of termination, delivered after the expiration of the notice to cure, was required to provide the tenant with an additional period of time to cure the alleged defaults prior to the expiration of the notice of termination. In these very specific circumstances, the court granted the tenant’s motion for Yellowstone relief made after the expiration of the notice to cure. Careful practitioners, however, would be wise not to take the risk of moving for Yellowstone relief after the expiration of the notice to cure, even in circumstances where the lease could be interpreted to give the tenant addiNovember 2019 || 17

PRESS RELEASES

Daniel M. Bernstein To Co-Chair 2019 Rent Law Seminar At NYC Bar Association Daniel M. Bernstein

Member, Affordable Housing

Panel Event to Address Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 October 29, 2019

“The impacts of this far-reaching and often confusing act are extraordinary,” said Daniel M. Bernstein, member, Rosenberg & Estis. “Despite the focus on this issue during the past several months, the new rent laws require more explanation and clarification, including from the authors of the legislation, attorneys addressing its implementation and from real estate stakeholders affected by it.”

18 || November 2019

D

aniel M. Bernstein, member with Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. and co-chair of the NYC Bar Association Committee on Housing & Urban Development, will oversee a CLE program on the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 on Thursday, October 31st from 9 am - 12:15 pm. He will co-host the program with Jennifer Kubicki, an attorney with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

The discussion will provide real estate stakeholders and attorneys up-to-date information and practice pointers about the generational changes to NYS housing laws and how it is affecting owners and tenants, borrowers and lenders, courts and government since its enactment in June of 2019. New York State Senator Zellnor Y. Myrie and RuthAnne Visnauskas, the Commissioner and CEO of New York State’s Division of Housing and Com-

munity Renewal, will deliver the keynote. Luise A. Barrack, Managing Member of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., will appear as a panelist speaking on Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act’s impact on landlords and tenants.

“The impacts of this far-reaching and often confusing act are extraordinary,” said Daniel M. Bernstein, member, Rosenberg & Estis. “Despite the focus on this issue during the past several months, the new rent laws require more explanation and clarification, including from the authors of the legislation, attorneys addressing its implementation and from real estate stakeholders affected by it.”

Topics & Panelists Scheduled to Appear Include Panel I: HSTPA Impacts on Landlords and Tenants • David Hershey-Webb - Partner, Himmelstein, McCon-

PRESS RELEASES

nell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph LLP • Ellen Davidson - Staff Attorney, Law Reform Unit, The Legal Aid Society • Luise A. Barrack - Managing Member, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. • Professor Andrea McArdle - Professor of Law, CUNY School of Law (Moderator)

Daniel M. Bernstein is a member and leader of the Rosenberg & Estis’ Tax Incentives & Affordable Housing Department.

His practice involves affordable housing and urban development issues in New York, obtaining property tax exemptions and abatements, development rights bonuses and incentives/zoning requirements for New York City Panel II: HSTPA Impacts on projects. The event will be held Housing Development and Fi- at the New York City Bar Assonance ciation on 42 W 44th Street on Thursday, October 31 from 9:00 • Malcolm Punter - President & am - 12:30 pm.

CEO, Harlem Congregations for Community Improvement, Inc. • Professor Richard M. Froelich - Adjunct Associate Professor, Columbia University • Jeremy Shell - Principal and Executive Vice President, TF Cornerstone, Inc. • Mark Willis - Senior Policy Fellow, NYU Furman Center • Karen Sherman, Karen Sherman Law (Moderator) November 2019 || 19

PRESS RELEASES

Real Estate Law Firm Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Establishes Bankruptcy Department Jack J. Rose

Member, Bankruptcy

Jack Rose Joins Firm as Member to Lead New Department October 29, 2019

“The creation of a department focused on reorganization and bankruptcy helps us further service clients as the firm continues to grow,” said Luise A. Barrack, Managing Member with Rosenberg & Estis. “Jack’s deep experience with distressed situations and bankruptcy issues, and the addition of this department, significantly expands our scope and advances our mission to provide a full suite of complementary services.”

R

osenberg & Estis, P.C., a leading New York City real estate law firm, has announced that Jack Rose has joined the firm as a Member to lead the firm’s new Bankruptcy and Reorganization Department.

The addition of Rose and the establishment of a bankruptcy and reorganization department demonstrates Rosenberg & Estis’ commitment to continue providing clients with comprehensive legal representation across all aspects of real estate, and beyond. The new practice adds another resource to serve Rosenberg & Estis’ clients and complements the firm’s recent expansion into the areas of Construction, Tax Certiorari and CoOp / Condominium.

Rose has three decades of experience in bankruptcy and distressed situations having been actively involved in many of the nation’s largest bankruptcies, representing landlords, tenants,

20 || November 2019

lenders, acquirers, investors, debtors and creditors. His experience with distressed real estate and real-estate-owning entities in bankruptcy includes his representation of Olympia and York and VMS NHP in their Chapter 11 bankruptcies.

In addition, the department has experience across a broad spectrum of industries, including Hospitality, Real Estate, Airlines, Retail, Hotels, Agriculture, Oil and Gas, Transportation, Shipping, Entertainment, Technology, IT, Aquaculture, Education Services, Printing, Manufacturing, Mining, Insurance, Telecommunications, Parking, Healthcare, Education, Not for Profits and Municipal Insolvencies.

The department’s experience also includes analyzing and developing structures that enhance the protections available to investors, acquirers, lenders and creditors in the event of an insolvent counterparty, or in cases

PRESS RELEASES

when a counter party becomes insolvent.

“The creation of a department focused on reorganization and bankruptcy helps us further service clients as the firm continues to grow,” said Luise A. Barrack, Managing Member with Rosenberg & Estis. “Jack’s deep experience with distressed situations and bankruptcy issues, and the addition of this department, significantly expands our scope and advances our mission to provide a full suite of complementary services.”

Case, Rogers & Wells (now Clifford Chance) and Weil Gotshal and Manges.

Prior to joining Rosenberg & Estis, Rose was a partner at the Law Offices of Jack J. Rose in Bronxville, where he represented investors, creditors, shareholders and debtors in connection with investments and restructurings.

In addition, Rose has served as a mediator and court appointed Chief Restructuring Officer.

Rose was previously with the firms of Ashurst LLP, White & November 2019 || 21

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Secures Appellate Division Win, Securing Attorney’s Fees In Marathon, 12-Action Case Bradley S. Silverbush Member, Litigation

Successfully Defends Coop’s Right to Deduct Legal Fees from Proceeds of Judicial Sale October 16, 2019

“Despite the seemingly endless delay, this case demonstrates that with zealous legal representation co-operative boards can prevail over combative shareholders,” said Silverbush.

“The co-op board steadfastly defended its rights, and at the conclusion of the litigation it was able to evict the shareholder and receive compensation for all legal fees.”

R

osenberg & Estis, P.C., a leading New York City real estate law firm, has prevailed before the Appellate Division, First Department, of New York State, successfully defending a cooperative corporation’s right to unilaterally deduct approximately $390,000 in attorney’s fees as additional maintenance from the proceeds of a judicial sale.

The ruling follows an epic legal battle with a litigious shareholder in 12-14 East 64th Street that entailed a total of 12 different actions, including the appeal.

What began in 2006 as an effort to force the shareholder to pay her maintenance ended in the shareholder’s eviction and the award of maintenance arrears and attorney’s fees.

Rosenberg & Estis Member Bradley Silverbush represented 12-14 East 64th Street before the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division upheld the de-

22 || November 2019

cision by Justice Lynn R. Kotler of the New York State Supreme Court in New York County, who ruled that the co-op was justified in withholding approximately $390,000 in attorney’s fees as additional maintenance from proceeds on the sale of the shareholder’s apartment.

“Despite the seemingly endless delay, this case demonstrates that with zealous legal representation co-operative boards can prevail over combative shareholders,” said Silverbush. “The co-op board steadfastly defended its rights, and at the conclusion of the litigation it was able to evict the shareholder and receive compensation for all legal fees.”

The shareholder, Verina Hixon, had a history of filing suits against the co-op and other entities. In 2006, following Hixon’s failure to pay maintenance, 12-14 East 64th Street commenced a summary non-payment in Housing

PRESS RELEASES

Court. After years of delays and appeals, 12-14 East 64th Street brought Rosenberg & Estis into the case. Silverbush successfully defended various legal actions brought by Hixon against the coop and secured an eviction.

After Hixon was evicted, the coop held a public auction to sell her unit, and transferred the shares to the new purchaser.

Hixon then sued the coop and two board members, alleging that the sale of the property was improperly handled. She also sued for damages to her personal property, and alleged that the legal fees and maintenance deducted from the proceeds of the sale were unreasonable. Her main argument was to challenge the fees on the basis that they were more than the maintenance she owed.

Justice Kotler granted Rosenberg & Estis summary judgment, dismissing all of the claims with the exception of the determination of the fees, pending review of an accounting. After reviewing the invoices and an affirmation attesting to the reasonableness of the fees, and without soliciting argument by opposing counsel, the judge made a final deter-

mination, holding that all of the fees deducted were reasonable.

This was an implicit recognition of, and testament to, the expertise of the co-op’s attorneys.

Appellate Division, and a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals that was rejected.

Among the cases during the saga: • Successful prosecution of a case based upon Hixon’s default in maintenance payment; • Successful defense of two Housing Part cases commenced by Hixon; • Successful defeat of four small claims cases commenced by Hixon; • Successful defense of a bogus claim of discrimination, resulting in the dismissal of Hixon’s claim; • Successful dismissal of Hixon’s bankruptcy petition, which she commenced to try to maintain possession of the premises; • Two successful decisions in Hixon’s supreme court action; • Success before the Appellate Division.

Hixon also had an appeal from a prior case that she lost at the November 2019 || 23

PRESS RELEASES

Dennis I. Hellman Member, Transactions

Eric S. Orenstein Member, Transactions

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Represents The Durst Organization in $1.6 Billion Refinancing Of One Bryant Park In New York September 6, 2019

R Stefanie M. Graham Of Counsel, Transactions

Kamilla Bogdanov Assocaite, Transactions

Zachary M. Rockoff Associate, Transactions

“Rosenberg & Estis is gratified to have continued its longstanding role as primary legal counsel to The Durst Organization in connection with this extraordinary project, which stands out as a leading element of the Manhattan skyline,” Hellman said.

osenberg & Estis, P.C. served as legal counsel to a joint venture between The Durst Organization and Bank of America in the $1.6 billion financing of One Bryant Park in Manhattan, which included a $950-million refinancing CMBS loan and the $650 million-dollar refinancing of the publicly assisted loan with the required defeasances of the previous CMBS and publicly assisted loans.

The total loan of $1.6 billion is secured by a mortgage on One Bryant Park, a 51-story with approximately 2,350,000 rentable square feet of office, restaurant and retail space, in which Bank of America is the largest tenant.

Dennis Hellman and Eric Orenstein, members, Stefanie Graham, of counsel, Kamilla Bogdanov and Zachary Rockoff, associates, all with Rosenberg & Estis, represented Durst in the refinancing transactions. Bank of America led the securitization and underwriting of both loans. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe served as co-counsel on the $650 million-dollar Liberty Bond Loan, and Chatham Financial served as financial advisor. Ira Marx, chief financial officer, with assistance from Lucas Durst, financial associate, led the Durst Organization’s team.

“Rosenberg & Estis is gratified to have continued its longstanding role as primary legal counsel to

24 || November 2019

The Durst Organization in connection with this extraordinary project, which stands out as a leading element of the Manhattan skyline,” Hellman said.

Orenstein added that the Firm’s involvement in this project started approximately twenty years ago and has involved legal work on the land assemblage, ground lease and subway easement, joint venture with Bank of America and all the previous financings.

The refinanced interest-only mortgage loans, which closed on August 21, contain borrower-favorable interest rates during their 10-year terms. The $950 million CMBS loan included an increase of $300 million in excess of the previous CMBS loan. An amendment and restatement of the existing $400-million loan from Bank of America to a Durst member of the joint venture closed simultaneously with the refinancing of the mortgage loans on One Bryant Park.

PRESS RELEASES

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Secures Critical Victory In Rent Overcharge Case September 6, 2019

Neil C. Dwork

Member, Litigation

“This is a critical ruling that provides owners and tenants with clarity on how the new rent law will be applied retroactively by the courts to overcharge claims,” said Neil Dwork, member, Rosenberg & Estis. “In cases when a decision has already been rendered on the overcharge claim, the courts are not going to reopen the issue.”

This groundbreaking victory was featured on the front cover of the New York Law Journal

R

osenberg & Estis, P.C. has successfully represented 400 E58 Owner LLC against a tenant who sought to revive dismissed rent overcharge claims in light of the new rent regulation laws. Judge Francis A. Ortiz of the Civil Court of the City of New York ruled in favor of Rosenberg & Estis’ client, delivering an important ruling that affects owners throughout New York.

Judge Ortiz denied the tenant’s motion to revive the dismissed claims, stating that the recently passed law “relate[s] to claims pending or filed after the effective day of the statute.” Ortiz ruled that the four-year rule applied as the previous law was in effect when the court ruled on the claims.

“This is a critical ruling that provides owners and tenants with clarity on how the new rent The case focused on overcharge law will be applied retroactiveclaims by a tenant in 400 East 58 ly by the courts to overcharge Street that were dismissed prior claims,” said Neil Dwork, memto passage of the Housing Sta- ber, Rosenberg & Estis. “In casbility and Tenant Protection Act es when a decision has already of 2019. Following enactment of been rendered on the overthis law, the statute of limitations charge claim, the courts are not was extended from four to six going to reopen the issue.” years, and courts are allowed to consider all available rent history that is deemed reasonably necessary.

November 2019 || 25

EVENTS

November 4 CBRE Midtown Manhattan

WLI (WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE) CAREER DEVELOPMENT NIGHT Managing Member Luise A. Barrack was a panelist at the Urban Land Institute (ULI) New York’s Women’s Leadership Initiative (WLI): Career Development Night. The audience consisted of female, real estate-focused grad students from several different schools, including Columbia University, New York University and Baruch College. Divided into three groups, the students participated in conversational breakout sessions centered on Real Estate Development, Asset Management and Capital Markets. Luise was a panelist of the Capital Markets group along with Sarah S. Gochberg of Ladder Capital Finance (friend and client of R&E) and Bethany Logan Ropa of UBS Investment Bank. In addition to answering several questions about the nuts-and-bolts of Capital Markets, Luise, as advice to candidates beginning their job search, emphasized the importance of loving what you do. “We look for associates who have a demonstrated interest in real estate. If you want to excel at what you do, you have to love what you do. There is never a day that I have stared at the clock or wanted time to go by quicker. I have been passionate about what I do every day from the day I started as an associate more than 30 years ago,” she said.

October 31 NYCBA - 42 W 44th Street

HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 (“HSTPA”) — WHAT OWNERS AND TENANTS (AND THEIR COUNSEL) NEED TO KNOW R&E member Daniel M. Bernstein and Managing Member Luise A. Barrack were speakers at a CLE called Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (“HSTPA”) - What Owners and Tenants (And Their Counsel) Need to Know. As Co-Chair of the NYC Bar Association’s Committee on Housing and Urban Development, Daniel gave opening remarks and a topical overview of the agenda to be discussed. Luise was the opening speaker of Panel I: HSTPA Impacts on Landlords and Tenants. Following pro-regulation plenary speakers Senator Zellnor Y. Myrie and RuthAnne Visnauskas and accompanied by pro-tenant panelists Ellen Davidson and David Hershey-Webb, Luise offered the program’s only pro-landlord perspective on HSTPA. She pragmatically advocated for owners and landlords and the NYC market at large with a bipartisan, logic-based interpretation of HSTPA and explained that changing legislation too far in any direction - either to the left or to the right - will reap damaging consequences on the NYC rent market.

In an earlier Real Estate Weekly article, Luise symbolized the impact of HSTPA as a pendulum that had swung too far.

The post-panel Q&A session made for a balanced and informative opportunity for the packed audience to glean insight about HSTPA from both ends of the spectrum.

26 || November 2019

EVENTS

October 23 Tribeca 360

October 23 12 W 37th & 444 Madison Avenue

2019 PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE AWARD CEREMONY

HSTPA BREAKFAST AND LUNCH PRESENTATIONS

Founding Member Gary M. Rosenberg was honored at New York Law Journal’s 2019 Professional Excellence Award Ceremony as a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award. The event’s opening remarks were delivered by Gary and were captured in the below photos. Congratulations, Gary!

R&E member Joshua Kopelowitz presented HSTPA 2019 in back-to-back sessions before Highcap Group and PCCP, LLC (Pacific Coast Capital Partners). So great to connect with Josh Goldflam for a breakfastand-learn and with Brian Haber for a lunch-and-learn.

Please feel free to reach out to Josh with any further questions about the rent law changes.

November 2019 || 27

EVENTS

October 23 Four Seasons Downtown

IGLOBAL’S GLOBAL LEADERS IN REAL ESTATE SUMMIT On October 23, 2019, member Adam R. Sanders moderated a panel discussion during The Global Leaders in Real Estate Summit which brought together a collection of luminaries in the industry. Several keynote speakers discussed their thoughts on the overall US Economy and how that relates to Real Estate in NYC, domestically and internationally. Panel discussions focused on a range of topics from Macro views of the US as a whole, to Micro views of NYC in particular.

Adam lead a discussion which focused on Strategies for Uncovering Hidden Returns in Core Properties with speakers from Northwood Investors and Cortland. The major themes uncovered during the panel are that Multi-Family is still king, Retail is troubled but is evolving, and outside of NYC, Office is still providing yield in secondary cities. Investors and Developers are seeing challenges due to new legislation and regulations, in addition to wage pressure and taxes.

This is going to cause smart investors to continue to look into secondary and non-gateway cities in order to find the yield that they are looking for.

28 || November 2019

October 21 Frederick P. Rose Hall

YMCA ARTS & LETTERS RECEPTION Managing Member Luise A. Barrack is pictured here with Sharon Greenberger, President and CEO of the YMCA of Greater New York and Craig S. Charie, R&E of counsel, at the YMCA 2019 Arts & Letters Reception - such an incredible night as always, and thank you, Sharon, for the wonderful work you do on behalf of YMCA of Greater New York!

EVENTS

October 18 14 Vesey Street

October 7 254 W 31st

AIRBNB CLE PRESENTATION

HSTPA PRESENTATION TO CHOICE

R&E member Michael A. Pensabene presented a CLE on Airbnb for the Jack Newton Lerner Landlord Tenant Practice Institute held at the New York County Lawyers Association which included a mock trial with law clerk Michael Nesheiwat. The Honorable Jack Stoller presided over the trial which Pensabene based on characters from the “Seinfeld” television series. Catharine A. Grad, Esq. represented “Jerry” who Pensabene sought to evict. The trial kept attendees, the jury of the trial, laughing and reminiscing over Seinfeld episodes while learning landlord / tenant law surrounding Airbnb in NYC.

R&E member Joshua Kopelowitz presented HSTPA of 2019 to Choice New York Management at a Breakfast and Learn. The audience of nearly 30 Choice team members asked several questions about the impact of HSTPA on day to day landlord / tenant matters and also on the NYC real estate industry at large.

October 4 256 W 116th October 16 Tribeca Rooftop

WHERE GOOD LIVES GALA R&E Managing Member Luise A. Barrack is pictured here with Eric Hadar, Co-founder, Chairman and CEO of Allied Partners, Inc., who was honored on October 16, 2019 at the 4th Annual Where Good Lives Gala for his ongoing contributions to the Samaritan Daytop Foundation.

HSTPA 2019 PRESENTATION TO NHR R&E member Joshua Kopelowitz presented HSTPA 2019 to New Holland Residences during a lunch and learn on October 4, 2019. The audience included asset management, leasing, apartment rentals, building operations and finance professionals. All engaged in a thoughtful Q&A session and enjoyed famous shakes and burgers from Harlem Shake restaurant.

November 2019 || 29

EVENTS

September 23 Long Beach

August 27 REBNY

JUDICIAL SEMINAR

REBNY RENT REGULATION SEMINAR

R&E member Jeffrey Turkel addressed Housing and Civil Court Judges at a Judicial Seminar in Long Beach. Mr. Turkel discussed the mechanics and policy of the HSPTA, as well as its intended and unintended consequences. His remarks were followed by a lively question and answer period.

Luise A. Barrack, Blaine Z. Schwadel and Nicholas Kamillatos presented to 100-plus members of The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) on the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. It was a packed house of audience members who were actively engaged for the 60-minute presentation. After the seminar portion concluded, all three speakers answered audience questions for another 60 minutes.

September 17 NYCBA

NYCBA’S COMMITTEE ON HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT R&E member Daniel M. Bernstein began another term as co-chair of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Housing & Urban Development along with co-chair Jennifer Kubicki. Bernstein has an exciting agenda planned for the 2019/2020 term, including sponsoring a critically needed CLE program on the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (“HSTPA” aka “2019 Rent Law”) and the changes it has imposed.

30 || November 2019

EVENTS

August 21 Stabilis Capital Management, LP

August 14 Bold New York

HSTPA TEACHING SESSION

HSTPA PRESENTATION TO BOLD

Managing Member Luise A. Barrack was invited to present HSTPA 2019 before a private group at Stabilis Capital Management, LP. In addition to summarizing the rent law changes and explaining the legislation’s impact on the NYC rent market, Luise answered several questions from the attendees in a Q&A session.

Joshua Kopelowitz was invited to present the 2019 changes to rent law before the Bold New York team.

He came prepared with a written summary of HSTPA describing exactly how the laws were changed and what the changes mean for affected players going forward. Thanks again to Andrew Eagle, Bold COO, for the opportunity.

September 5 Stoler Report

THE STOLER REPORT: RESIDENTIAL MARKET IN NYC - AFTER THE HOUSING ACT UPDATE R&E member Blaine Z. Schwadel sat down with Michael Stoler of the Stoler Report and discussed the Housing Act of 2019 as a big mistake for NY owners, renters and the city. They explained how the law creates uncertainty and is retroactive as much as 23 years, predicting fewer property improvements and fewer jobs as owners, builders and bankers continue to discuss this legislation. Click here to watch the full discussion.

August 14 Staten Island

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION REAL ESTATE CONVENTION Michael T. Carr was an expert speaker on a PCON (Property Management Construction Real Estate Convention) panel called “Reasonable perspective on how to adapt the new paradigm with rental laws.”

More than 800 real estate professionals were in attendance, several of them asking various questions regarding HSTPA of 2019. In light of these changes to rent law, Michael’s panel advised the audience on day to day operations of managing real estate and potential litigation with their tenants. Michael’s focus was litigation avoidance through being more proactive as an owner or managing entity.

November 2019 || 31

EVENTS

August 8 NY Bar Association

July 30 MET Republican Club

NYC AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMIT

SPONY RENT REGULATION SEMINAR

Daniel M. Bernstein moderated the “Affordable Financing and Regulation Strategy” panel at BISNOW’s NYC Affordable Housing Summit. Before a packed audience at the NY Bar Association, the panel addressed questions like, What impact will an economic slowdown have on affordable financing? What are the effects of Rent Law changes on loan sizing, cap rate and other financing issues?Audience engagement was at an all-time high - the event duration was extended due to the overwhelming number of questions received during the panels, including Daniel’s.

Blaine Z. Schwadel and Alexander Lycoyannis presented to 70-plus members of the Small Property Owners of New York (SPONY) on the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. The audience was actively engaged for the 90-minute presentation.

Blaine and Alex then answered audience questions for another 40 minutes and closed the venue down speaking to owners privately after the event concluded. The small building owners in attendance were extremely grateful for our help in understanding the new laws that negatively affect their livelihoods.

August 1 New York Hilton Midtown

NYBC CONSTRUCTION BREAKFAST As a sponsoring member of the New York Building Congress, R&E was pleased to take part in the August 1, 2019 Construction Industry Breakfast. Arthur C. Silverman, Daniel M. Bernstein, Howard W. Kingsley, Frank E. Chaney, Mark I. Zelko and Gerard S. Strain attended.

32 || November 2019

EVENTS

July 24 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.

JNF RENT STABILIZATION LEGISLATION PANEL R&E hosted Jewish National Fund’s Rent Stabilization Legislation Panel which featured members Deborah E. Riegel and Blaine Z. Schwadel as panelists. Deborah is JNF’s New York Board President. The panel shared expertise on the 2019 rent law changes with nearly 40 attendees, and all enjoyed appetizers and beautiful weather on our terrace.

July 16 Terminal Warehouse

HSTPA 2019: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT RENT REFORM Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. partnered with Lee & Associates to break down the recent rent reform legislation and tackle questions before a crowd at Terminal Warehouse. R&E members Patti Stone, Blaine Z. Schwadel and Jason R. Davidson were expert presenters at the event: Patti presented HSTPA parts A - F, Blaine presented parts I, J, K and N and Jason presented part M. The discussion ended with a Q&A session and a rooftop happy hour.

July 11 NYCLA

CLE: THE RENT LAWS OF 2019 R&E members Blaine Z. Schwadel and Jeffrey Turkel were speakers at a CLE titled “The Rent Law of 2019.” Due to high demand from attorneys, landlords and other industry players, the CLE was presented in two matching sessions to accommodate the number of attendees. Blaine and Jeffrey presented identical content in a segment called “Rent Stabilization and Rent Control: Vacancy and Renewal Increases, Preferential Rents Deregulation, Owner’s Personal Use Leases with Not-For-Profits.”

November 2019 || 33

HONORS & AWARDS

R&E’S AWARDWINNING ATTORNEYS Gary M. Rosenberg Our strength lies in the depth of talent at this firm.

Please join us in celebrating achievements earned by our attorneys last quarter.

was named a winner of New York Law Journal’s 2019 Lifetime Achievement Award. Winners were honored at NYLJ’s 2019 Professional Excellence Award Ceremony.

Daniel M. Bernstein was featured in New York Real Estate Journal’s Ones to Watch Spotlight

Luise A. Barrack was featured in New York Real Estate Journal’s 2019 issue of Women in Real Estate Spotlight.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.

Daniel Grobman

“

was included in Commercial Observer’s 25 Under 35 Top Young Professionals List.

We are not just the biggest real estate practice in NY but we are the best.

Our attorneys reflect the excellence with which we practice and the breadth of talent we have at R&E. As a result, we consistently achieve our clients’ goals.”

- Luise A. Barrack Managing Member

34 || November 2019

Arthur C. Silverman

was ranked #1 on The Real Deal’s list of Biggest Real Estate-Only Law Firms across all NYC boroughs.

R&E was also ranked #3 on TRD’s 2019 list of “The Law Firms wiht the Biggest Real Estate Practices” and #30 on the list of firms that “Handled the Highest Dollar Volume of NYC Loans.”

was named a recipient of Marquis Who’s Who’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

This distinction was featured in an August issue of the Wall Street Journal.

Arthur was also included in the 2020 edition of Best Lawyers.

Adam R. Sanders

Deborah E. Riegel

was invited to share his expertise as a writer on Opportunity Zone Magazine’s Writers Council.

After many years of service on the Board of Directors of the Brooklyn Law School Alumni Association, she has been elected as its President-Elect.

She will assume the Presidency in July 2021.

Deborah was also included in the 2020 edition of Best Lawyers.

Adam’s invitation follows his recent inclusion in Opportunity Zone Magazine’s Top 25 Opportunity Zone Influencers.

ADVERTISEMENTS

SPREADING THE WORD

New Yorker & NYT Supplement R&E’s Super Lawyers

ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C. NEW YORK

We maintain a powerful, strategic and influential presence in relevant NYC publications. Here are a few you may have seen us featured in last quarter.

The Real Deal

Accompanying R&E’s rank as #1 on TRD’s list of Biggest Real Estate-Only Law Firms

NOW SERVICING CLIENTS WITH DISTRESSED REAL ESTATE AND BANKRUPTCY ISSUES BACK L-R: Laura Davidov**, Benjamin Koblentz**, Evan D. Rosenberg**, William Byers*, Devin P. Kosar**, Alexander Lycoyannis*, Bradley S. Silverbush*, Howard W. Kingsley*, Brendan J. Derr**, Zachary G. Karram**, Dennis I. Hellman*; MIDDLE L-R: Adam R. Sanders*, David Fries**, Peter B. Kane**, Arielle Frost**, Cori A. Rosen**, Joshua Kopelowitz*, Anthony J. Virga**, Jeanine Floyd**, Patti Stone*, Robert M. Kessler*, Jeffrey Turkel*, Stefanie M. Graham**; FRONT L-R: Norman Flitt*, Deborah E. Riegel*, Blaine Z. Schwadel*, Warren A. Estis*, Luise A. Barrack*, Gary M. Rosenberg*, Richard L. Sussman*, Michael E. Lefkowitz*, Eric S. Orenstein**. Not pictured: Jason R. Davidson*, Arthur C. Silverman*, Gerard S. Strain*, Ethan R. Cohen** (*Chosen to 2019 Super Lawyers; **Chosen to 2019 Rising Stars)

Real Estate Begins With Since 1975, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has been shaping the New York City skyline. With over 80 attorneys, the firm is one of the largest real estate practices in New York City. From its inception, R&E has focused exclusively on real estate, maintaining a boutique presence in the market and providing its clients with a vast breadth of knowledge and a unique, concentrated perspective.

Attorneys at R&E take a creative, results-driven approach to every legal issue. Built on long-term client relationships and interdepartmental collaboration, R&E ensures the most efficient and favorable outcomes in every situation.

R&E provides full-service representation and advice in every aspect of real estate, from performing due diligence and evaluating financing, to handling joint ventures, acquisitions and leasing, construction agreements, land use and zoning matters, co-op and condo offering plan filings, as well as litigation.

The firm continues to expand to serve its clients’ needs and now provides owners and developers with its expertise on Real Property Income & Expense (RPIE) filings and on matters related to property tax exemptions and abatements for residential and commercial construction departments.

R&E’s wealth of experience in New York real estate makes it the ideal thought partner for owners, developers, not-for-profit corporations, educational institutions, sponsors, equity investors and lenders in both real estate transactions and in all court venues.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / RENT REGULATIONS BANKRUPTCY & REORGANIZATION CONSTRUCTION CO-OP / CONDO LITIGATION OPPORTUNITY ZONES PROPERTY TAX (CERTIORARI) STATE & FEDERAL COURT APPEALS TAX INCENTIVES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRANSACTIONS ZONING & LAND USE

R&E is known for its tenacious and successful representation in all aspects of commercial and residential real estate litigation, transactions, administrative law proceedings and appeals. The firm solves complex real estate problems with an aggressive, streamlined approach that guarantees cost-effective results for its clients. Clients benefit from the firm’s commitment to exceptional service and its unique ability to anticipate real estate trends and approach them with innovative solutions.

733 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 || www.rosenbergestis.com || 212.867.6000

comprehensive real estate representation

733 Third Avenue, New York, NY || 212.867.6000 || rosenbergestis.com

Real Estate Weekly

HSTPA 2019 Follow-up Message

New York Law Journal Congratulations message for Gary M. Rosenberg

Gary M. Rosenberg Founding Member and Chairman of the Board of the Directors, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.

The new rent laws will have drastic effects on the New York real estate market.

WINNER New York Law Journal’s

Rosenberg & Estis is poised to help owners and other affected players navigate the new reality.

It’s more important than ever to have the right team behind you.

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

The Real Deal

Accompanying R&E’s rank as #1 on TRD’s list of Biggest Real Estate-Only Law Firms SHAPING THE NEW YORK CITY SKYLINE SINCE 1975

2019

“

There is no one who can deliver a better resolution to any situation than Gary. He examines words like a diamond dealer and finds, in those words, the meaning that he wants to ascribe. He tackles problems with the same enthusiasm as people enjoying a high-performance sport like skiing, embracing the situation like a mountain, always pointed directly towards his goal.

- Luise A. Barrack, Managing Member

733 Third Avenue || (212) 867- 6000 || www.rosenbergestis.com

COmPREHENSIvE REAL ESTATE REPRESENTATION

Comprehensive real estate representation sinCe 1975

733 Third Avenue, new York, nY || 212.867.6000 || rosenbergesTis.com

New York Magazine R&E’s AV Preeminent Rated Attorneys

Crain’s Magazine R&E’s Super Lawyers

ADmINISTRATIvE LAW / RENT REGULATIONS CONSTRUCTION CO-OP / CONDO LITIGATION OPPORTUNITY ZONES PROPERTY TAX (CERTIORARI) STATE & FEDERAL COURT APPEALS TAX INCENTIvES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRANSACTIONS ZONING & LAND USE rosenberg & esTis, P.c.

733 Third Avenue, new York, nY || 212.867.6000 || rosenbergesTis.com

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. the legal leaders of New York City real estate

COMPREHENSIVE REAL ESTATE REPRESENTATION

Back Row (left to right): Joshua R. Kopelowitz, Adam R. Sanders, Howard W. Kingsley, Bradley S. Silverbush, Luise A. Barrack, Jason R. Davidson, Eric S. Orenstein, Dennis I. Hellman, Arthur C. Silverman and Robert M. Kessler Sitting (left to right): Norman Flitt, Gary M. Rosenberg and Richard L. Sussman Not Pictured: Warren A. Estis, Steven R. Goldberg and Jonathan S. Hacker

BACK L-R: Laura Davidov**, Benjamin Koblentz**, Evan D. Rosenberg**, William Byers*, Devin P. Kosar**, Alexander Lycoyannis*, Bradley S. Silverbush*, Howard W. Kingsley*, Brendan J. Derr**, Zachary G. Karram**, Dennis I. Hellman*; MIDDLE L-R: Adam R. Sanders*, David Fries**, Peter B. Kane**, Arielle Frost**, Cori A. Rosen**, Joshua Kopelowitz*, Anthony J. Virga**, Jeanine Floyd**, Patti Stone*, Robert M. Kessler*, Jeffrey Turkel*, Stefanie M. Graham**; FRONT L-R: Norman Flitt*, Deborah E. Riegel*, Blaine Z. Schwadel*, Warren A. Estis*, Luise A. Barrack*, Gary M. Rosenberg*, Richard L. Sussman*, Michael E. Lefkowitz*, Eric S. Orenstein**. Not pictured: Jason R. Davidson*, Arthur C. Silverman*, Gerard S. Strain*, Ethan R. Cohen** (*Chosen to 2019 Super Lawyers; **Chosen to 2019 Rising Stars)

ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C. || 733 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 || 212.867.6000 || www.rosenbergestis.com

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW / RENT REGULATIONS CONSTRUCTION CO-OP / CONDO LITIGATION OPPORTUNITY ZONES PROPERTY TAX (CERTIORARI) STATE & FEDERAL COURT APPEALS TAX INCENTIVES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRANSACTIONS ZONING & LAND USE

COMPREHENSIVE REAL ESTATE REPRESENTATION SINCE 1975

733 Third Avenue, New York, NY || 212.867.6000 || rosenbergestis.com

November 2019 || 35

GIVING BACK

R&E GIVES BACK

Cornell University Big Red Football

We proudly play an active role in the support and development of local NYC and global service groups. Here are a few we partnered with last quarter.

The Dream Ride Experience

New York State Association for Affordable Housing on behalf of member Daniel M. Bernstein and his client’s recognition as NYSAFAH’s 2019 Downstate Project of the Year, R&E was proud to sponsor NYSAFAH at this year’s Awards for Excellence

on behalf of R&E member Bradley S. Silverbush

New York Real Estate Journal The Jewish Children’s Museum

on its 30th Anniversary

for his remarkable work on behalf of Children’s Hope India

Operation Backpack

Loose Change for Charity R&E has installed loose change banks on every floor of the firm.

On a monthly basis, we collect all of the change and donate it to various charity organizations

New York Athletic Club

on behalf of R&E of counsel Ethan R. Cohen, in support of its Bill Farrell Memorial International Open

New York Cares Holiday Gift Program For four consecutive years, R&E has purchased holiday gifts for underprivileged children in the community. Last year, we provided gifts to over 90 children at local schools and nearby shelters, and we plan to beat that number this year

36 || November 2019

R&E donated 25 supplies-filled backpacks to this great organization that provides NYC’s most vulnerable children with the materials they need to have a successful and confident start to a new school year

Primary Stages

at this year’s gala honoring Theresa Rebeck on behalf of R&E member Richard L. Sussman

Sandeep Mathrani for his remarkable work on behalf of Children’s Hope India

About R&E Founded in 1975, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. is widely recognized as one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms. R&E provides full-service representation and advice in every aspect of real estate, from performing due diligence and evaluating financing, to handling joint ventures, acquisitions and leasing, construction and design team agreements, property tax exemptions and abatements, land use and zoning matters, Real Property Income & Expense (RPIE) filings, co-op and condo offering plan filings, distressed situations and bankruptcies, as well as the litigations and negotiations which sometimes ensue when deal-making. R&E’s wealth of experience in New York real estate makes it the ideal thought partner for owners, developers, not-for-profit corporations, educational institutions, sponsors, equity investors and lenders in both real estate transactions and in all court venues.

FIRM OVERVIEW

EDITORIAL TEAM

ATTORNEY PROFILES

Dean P. Arfanis Kelly M. Mueller Erica N. Linnemann

PRACTICE AREAS

For questions or further information, please contact elinnemann@rosenbergestis.com

CAREERS CONTACT

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. ©2019 Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. | ATTORNEY ADVERTISING