Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Claim of Non-Purchasing Tenant Status Rebuffed
When developers convert occupied buildings to condominiums or, less frequently, cooperative ownership, non-purchasing tenants are protected from eviction. When tenants in those buildings acquire vested rights as non-purchasing tenants is significant for developers, because the timing dictates the number of units that will be available for sale to outside purchasers. It is, therefore, no surprise that this is a highly charged and contested issue. Kessler v. Carnegie Park Associates, et al., represents the most recent effort by a group of tenants to expand their rights and to retain possession of otherwise unregulated units. In Kessler, plaintiffs unsuccessfully claimed that eligible senior citizens and eligible disabled persons are entitled to non-purchasing tenant status under the Martin Act upon acceptance of a non-eviction offering plan for filing. The Supreme Court and the Appellate Division made short-shift of their baseless claims and dismissed the complaint on a pre-answer motion to dismiss, recognizing that plaintiffs had ignored the statutory differences between eviction plans and non-eviction plans.
General Business Law 352-eeee sets forth the rights of tenants in occupancy, as well as the obligations of sponsors, with respect to conversions of occupied properties. A non-purchasing tenant obtains the right to remain in possession for so long as he or she chooses, subject to not unconscionable rent increases. Non-purchasing tenants may not be evicted, other than for cause (e.g., breach of a substantial obligation of their tenancy or nuisance). In MH Residential I, LLC. v. Barrett, 78 AD3d 99 (1st Dept. 2010), the First Department determined that market tenants whose leases expired prior to the effective date of an offering plan were not entitled to non-purchasing tenant status. Against that backdrop, the plaintiffs in Kessler asserted a new and unique theory as a pathway to non-purchasing tenant status. The four named plaintiffs in Kessler asserted that they were entitled to non-purchasing tenant status as eligible senior citizens and eligible disabled persons within the meaning of GBL 352-eeee(1)(f) and (1)(g). Plaintiffs commenced their action in Kings County against 11 defendants, without regard to the location of the properties at issue. The HFZ defendants were the sponsors of four conversions in Manhattan, and none of the plaintiffs resided in any of the HFZ defendants' properties.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.