Adam Leitman Bailey's Blog, page 11

East Side Story

The made-for-Hollywood tale of a 16-year legal tussle to help a dedicated band of Manhattan “homesteaders” take ownership of the buildings they had moved into and begun to rehab.

Last year, Ramin Bahrani, one of my clients, was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay. For his previous movie, 99 Homes (2015), I had helped script the court scenes and advised closely on the script overall. I reminded Ramin that no real estate attorney had ever been thanked onstage by an Oscar winner. In my humble opinion, that streak was primed to end—we “dirt lawyers” have exciting, compelling stories to tell. That goes double for me, a small-firm lawyer. Though guidance on a screenplay helped Ramin, it’s the legal assistance I’ve given to one very prominent actress and her family that is part of my real-life work. This is the tale.

Shortly after starting my own firm, I was hired by several building squatters. That’s how they referred to themselves, anyway. They had broken into abandoned buildings on the Lower East Side of Manhattan and made them livable enough for small groups. In one six-story building, 544 East 13th Street, all these homesteaders—I banned the word squatter shortly after starting work with them, as they had a right to be living there—brought certain skills to bear. They did their own electrical work, pirating power from the light post on the sidewalk out front. They opened a bank account so they could obtain a water meter. They installed carpeting and pipes, made water run through those pipes and put in one refrigerator and one light bulb per floor.

The city had initially determined that the 13th Street building and others around it should be demolished, so the homesteaders had to fend off foreclosure. Later, though, city officials offered them the chance to buy the building for $1 if they would restore it to a legal residence and learn how to run it with a nonprofit organization that couldn’t run its own affairs.

I was handling all sorts of legal affairs for many of these buildings, as it seemed that the people at the agency that was supposed to be their caretaker were more interested in taking over the buildings altogether. I won several small battles in court, and eventually we sued the caretaker organization for theft and mismanagement, demanding that they cede ownership of the 13th Street building to the homesteaders.

The caretaker group was shocked and angry at being held accountable—but it forced them to get their act together and begin taking the properties seriously. That was the single biggest step toward securing ownership. From that point, the entire focus was on repairing the buildings and getting control of them.

However, the caretaker group nonetheless sued to evict the homesteaders, and a foreclosure case also began against the six-story former squat building in the East Village. My law firm was confident that pressing the caretaker for copies of the building’s financial accounts to corroborate its claim that it had spent all the building’s money on repairs would bear fruit for our side. Just before trial, the caretaker relented, paying in full the tax lien it owed—and the foreclosure was discontinued.

East Side Story Group Photo
From left to right: Isabel Celeste, Adam Leitman Bailey, Rosario Dawson and the other owners of 544 East 13th St – the building discussed in the testimonial above and the location of Rosario Dawson’s discovery/start of her career.

Without the threat of impending foreclosure—and having fleshed out each affordable-housing option for the building—the tenants were finally able to agree on such a program as well as the developer that would implement it.

Under their chosen inclusionary housing program (IHP), the building would be rehabbed and converted into a low-income cooperative. In exchange, the developer would receive certain zoning benefits for on- or off-site use. Prior to (or upon) returning to the rehabbed property, “eligible” tenants (as defined in the temporary-relocation agreement signed by each tenant before relocating) would be offered the chance to buy shares in the cooperative for their respective apartments.

My firm negotiated the various agreements with the caretaker and the developer, obtaining the most favorable terms possible for the tenants and to ensure that they would be entitled to homeownership upon their return. These pacts included a temporary relocation agreement and a relocation rent agreement, among other ancillary arrangements.

By 2021, all homesteaders had moved back in and been given not only keys to the building and their new apartments, but also shares of building ownership and a deed. These residents had become homeowners. I had been their attorney for 16 years—sweating, fighting, rallying, protesting and battling for them every step of the way. But this was all much bigger than me. These residents came to the building as young adults with no money, some still living on what the earth blessed them with. Notably, one 15-year-old, standing at the building on a staircase built by the homesteaders, was discovered by director Larry Clark and cast in the controversial 1995 film Kids as Ruby. Rosario Dawson no longer lives at the building but has worked closely with my firm and me, as well as her family, to make sure it remains properly maintained and protected. In so many ways, this exemplifies the American Dream coming true. A Hollywood ending, you might say.

Original Testimonial By Isabel Celeste:

For Full Article

The Free Shine

Based on a true story about Adam Leitman Bailey and a Shoe Shiner, written by Dov Treiman.

Jerome Jenkins was just ten years old when his Uncle Leroy had first shown him how to shine shoes at the professional level. He never realized that a mere two years later, he would inherit Uncle Leroy’s box and supplies.

With his father’s scant income as a janitor and his mother’s as a seamstress, the Jenkins family struggled to meet the barest necessities of life only with Jerome’s income as a shoe shiner. Without it, they would have starved.

Yet, even with the struggle, Jerome retained his loving character and always had a cheerful greeting and a friendly word for the businessmen who would put their feet on his box as he made every effort to make their shoes mirror bright.

When Jerome’s mother died, cousins gathered together their funds to give her a decent burial. Jerome’s father was certainly in no position to do anything but thank them.

Years came and went as Jerome watched each of these kindly relatives also passing away. Eventually, it was he and his father and not another soul who was any kind of relative.

Wars came and went. Fashions came and went. Expenses multiplied. But each morning Jerome would rouse himself at dawn, take a shower, grab his kit, and head for Manhattan’s financial district, where there was always a piece of leather needing a fresh layer of wax. Knowing the caliber of his clientele, Jerome only ever bought the highest quality waxes and supplies. While the shine might last longer than with cheaper products, denying him the frequency of trade from any one client, the quality of his work guaranteed their eager return.

Into this culture strode one day a young man who had a look of diligence and determination to him, a decently tailored suit, but shoes that were to Jerome’s studied eye, lacking the ultimate finish that he could only too well supply.

“Shine, Sir?” Jerome inquired as the young man strode by.

“No, thank you,” the young man replied. “I’m late.”

“My watch says it’s a quarter of, Sir. Unless your appointment was for half past, you’re early as I account it.”

“And how would you know that?”

“I’ve been working this stretch of Broadway since 1952, Sir. I’ve had thousands of conversations with gentlemen having me shine their shoes. Appointments around here are only ever on the half hour.”

The young man smiled. “You’re smart,” he said.

“Shine, Sir?” Jerome repeated.

“Well,” the young man began, “if you must know, I’m on my way to a job interview. I have calculated the costs of this trip to the last quarter. An unnecessary shoeshine just wasn’t in my budget.”

“Then take the shine for free, Sir.”

“For free? Why should I do that?”

“Because I think if I shine your shoes, you’re going to get that job. And if you get that job, you’re going to want me to take care of you a lot. If I’m willing to make that gamble, why stop me?”

“Very well,” the young man said as he sat down.

Knowing the young man was in a hurry, Jerome applied his expertise, but somewhat more quickly than usual.

“There you go, Sir,” he said when he’d finished.

Having inspected his shoes, as the young man started reaching into his pocket, Jerome waved him off. “No, Sir. I said it was free and I’m a man of my word.”

“Scott Adams,” the young man said as he extended his hand to Jerome.

“Jerome Jenkins, Mr. Adams.”

“Please call me Scott.”

“Not today, Sir. Today, you need to get accustomed to being called Mr. Adams.”

That was the last Jerome saw of Adams for a little more than two weeks. However, one Monday morning, there was Adams again, strolling nearly directly to Jerome.

“I got the job,” he said.

“I knew you would.”

“How did you know?”

“Just your manner. Shine?”

“Of course!”

With that, Adams became one of Jerome’s absolutely regular customers.

One morning, Adams looked at Jerome with a kind of ambiguous expression on his face.

“What is it, Mr. Adams?” Jerome asked.

“I’m not going to be working at this building anymore.”

“Is everything okay?”

“Everything is okay. Actually everything is wonderful. I’m opening my own office about six blocks further downtown.”

“Congratulations, Mr. Adams. That is wonderful news.”

“Truthfully, Jerome. It’s kind of bittersweet. I have friends here and I don’t know if I’ll see them again. And, of course, I have you.”

“Me, Mr. Adams? Anyone can shine a pair of shoes, Sir.”

“That’s not the point, Jerome.”

“Then what is it, Sir?”

“Well, I have an idea and I don’t know if you’ll like the idea, but I want you to think about it.”

“What’s your idea, Mr. Adams?”

“How about if you were at my office 8:00 every morning and did my shoes there?”

“Mr. Adams, that’s very flattering, but I’d lose all the trade I have here.”

“I know that Jerome. But if you came to my office, I’d pay not just for my shoes, but for the trade you would miss.”

“That’s very generous, Mr. Adams. But it doesn’t seem right.”

“Believe me, Jerome, it is right.”

“I’ll think about it, Mr. Adams.”

“Please do, Jerome.”

“When do you need your answer, Sir?”

“Two weeks.”

“I’ll give you your answer in a week, then.”

During the following week, although Jerome tried to persuade Adams to take back his offer, Jerome was soon to learn not to try to bargain with Adams. He was unmovable. And, of course, Adams got his way.

One day, months later, as Jerome was leaving Adams’s office, a fine looking gentleman spied him carrying his shoe shine equipment.

“Excuse me, Sir,” the gentleman began. “May I have a shine?”

Jerome saw no reason to refuse and as the day progressed, found himself completely unable to get to his uptown location, as one customer after another called upon his services.

After that, Jerome was finding that whenever he shined Adams’s shoes, the same thing was happening.

Finally, one morning, Jerome spoke up about it to Adams.

“Mr. Adams,” he said as he was buffing one of the shoes. “We’re going to have to change our deal.”

“Why is that, Jerome? Am I not paying you enough?”

“Too much, Sir. I’ve started picking up trade down here as well and I can’t accept your money for my lost trade because I’m not losing any.”

“That’s okay, Jerome.”

“No, Sir. It’s not.”

And for once, Adams knew that he was being bested and he reduced his payment to the normal rate Jerome was charging everybody else.

The new arrangement continued for some months until Adams informed Jerome that he was once again moving, although this time to a larger suite on the seventeenth floor of the same building.

“Would you be able to start coming in at 9:00 rather than 8:00?” Adams asked him.

“Yes, Mr. Adams, I can do that. Is there any reason?”

“Well, yes, Jerome, I have a number of people working for me and they might want you to shine their shoes as well. Would that work for you?”

“Yes, Mr. Adams. That would be fine.”

Under this new arrangement, matters continued well. Jerome continued coming to the building at 8:00 to take care of his other clients, while arriving at Adams’s office promptly at 9:00.

One morning, Jerome saw a distracted look in Adams’s face.

“Is everything quite all right, Mr. Adams?”

“Fine, thank you.”

“You don’t look fine, thank you, Mr. Adams.”

“Well, Jerome, I have decided I have to leave my wife.”

“I’m very sorry, Sir. No charge for today’s shine.”

“Why is that, Jerome?”

“Because today, Scott, you need to know somebody loves you.”

Adams was silent, but his silence spoke more loudly to Jerome than most of the things he had said to Jerome through the years. Having completed Adams’s shoes, Jerome worked his way among the rest of his regular customers in Adams’s office, all of them acting as if nothing were different.

When Jerome next came to Adam’s office, his was his usual cheerful greeting.

“Good morning, Mr. Adams,” he said.

“‘Mr. Adams?’”

“Yes, Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams.”

“But,” Adams began.

“That was special,” Jerome replied.

“Very,” Adams muttered.

Some months passed with their routine resumed as it had been prior to Adams’s revelation.

That is, until the morning that it was Jerome whose face displayed something was out of kilter.

“What is it, Jerome?” Adams asked. “You look unwell.”

“I’m sorry, Mr. Adams. I’m distracted. My father passed last night and I have absolutely no idea what I am going to do for a funeral for him.”

“That makes one of us,” Adams said and then somewhat more loudly to his assistant, “Maria, please take Mr. Jenkins here to my tailor. We need a black suit for him today.”

“But Mr. Adams,” Jerome protested. “It’s not my clothes. It’s the casket the cemetery, the everything.”

“The cemetery is the easy part,” Adams replied. “I’m a single man with a double cemetery plot I had planned to occupy with my wife. We’ll put your father in that plot.”

“But Mr. Adams.”

“No buts, Jerome. No buts.”

Maria escorted Jerome out of the office and at Adams’s direction made all the arrangements. There were not many arrangements to be made, however. For the funeral, Maria, Adams, and Jerome were the only ones in attendance.

The following Monday, things were back to normal and continued in that manner for several years.

One afternoon, Maria informed Adams that the police were on the telephone.

“Scott Adams, here. How may I help you?”

“Thank you, Mr. Adams. Are you familiar with a Jerome Jenkins?”

“Yes, officer, I am. He’s been my shoe… my friend for years.”

“I’m sorry to hear that Mr. Adams. We found Mr. Jenkins in his apartment this morning. He seems to have passed a few days ago.”

“How did you know to contact me?”

“In his closet, there is a black suit. In the pocket of the suit was a slip of paper with your business card attached to it. On the paper it said, ‘If anything happens to me, contact Scott Adams.’”

“I see, Officer. Has anyone claimed the body?”

“No, Mr. Adams.”

“Then may I put my assistant on the line to make the funeral arrangements?”

“Yes, Sir. I’m sorry for your loss.”

“Me too,” Adams said as he handed the telephone to Maria who, fortunately, was standing next to him in his office. As Maria completed the conversation, he slowly sat down.

An hour later, Maria saw him there in his office, staring at his shoes.

“Scott?” she asked.

“Yes?”

“The funeral is Saturday morning. Is that okay?”

“Yes, Maria. Thank you.”

That Saturday, Adams got up extra early, selected his very best suit, and set off for the funeral, being certain to stop at a shine stand near his apartment.

Getting down from the cab at the funeral home, he saw a young boy with a shoeshine box.

“Shine, Mister?” the boy inquired.

Hesitating but a moment, Adams said, “Yes, please,” and sat down.

When the boy had completed shining his shoes, he said, “That’ll be five dollars, Mister.”

Reaching into his wallet, Adams handed him a $100 bill.

“I’m sorry, Mister. I don’t have that kind of change.”

“No, of course, you don’t,” Adams said distractedly, taking the $100 bill back. Sliding the bill back into his wallet, he took out ten crisp $10 bills and handed them to the boy.

“Keep the change,” he said.

Dov Treiman’s Percolations
Copyright 2020 Dov Treiman
Pages 232-239

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Obtains Injunction Against Serial Illegal Short-Term Rental Operators

Representing a New York landlord, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. obtained an injunction in a Supreme Court ejectment action against a group of illegal short-term rental operators who commandeered multiple apartments in our client’s building.

Several months ago, a group of straw tenants, led by their ringleader, submitted a series of fraudulent apartment applications, and obtained leases for four apartments in the building. The plot quickly unraveled when none of the named tenants moved in. Instead, they furnished the apartments and immediately began a short-term rental operation, advertising the apartments on websites such as booking.com. We conferenced the matter with one of the tenants, the landlord, and the police, and agreed with one of the tenants for her to surrender one of the apartments. However, the group still controlled three other apartments in the building.

Since short-term renting (and advertising) in New York is illegal, we filed a Supreme Court ejectment action, arguing that the tenancies were void based on Real Property Law Section 231, which states that tenancies in apartments used for an illegal trade or business are void. RPL 231 also allows for an injunction against the illegal use.

We immediately moved, by order to show cause, for an injunction to prohibit the illegal use. In support of the motion we included affidavits from agents of the landlord demonstrating that the tenants never moved in to the apartments and that transient occupants with suitcases were observed coming and going from the apartments. We included pictures of transient occupants with luggage in the building, and copies of the defendants’ fraudulent apartment applications. We also included screenshots of the booking.com advertisement.

We argued that such use of the apartments, in addition to being illegal, is dangerous, and places the entire building and its lawful residents and staff at risk.

The Court awarded our client a temporary restraining order, then extended the injunction. The specific language of the injunction read:

Each Defendant (and all persons known and unknown acting on their behalf, or in concert with them) is enjoined and restrained in any manner or by any means from (i) advertising, offering, engaging in and/or facilitating illegal short-term rentals (less than 30 days) at the Premises; using or permitting the Premises to be used for an illegal trade or business by subletting the Premises and installing transient occupants in the Premises on an illegal short-term basis (less than 30 days); collecting any consideration, rent, or use and occupancy for the Premises from third parties in connection with any short-term rentals of the Premises; and (ii) using, occupying, or maintaining possession of the Premises.

Vladimir Mironenko, partner in Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s Landlord-Tenant and Litigation Departments represented the landlord.

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secures Historic Westchester County Real Estate Settlement Following Motion to Enforce

Background: 

Earlier this year, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. secured an absolute victory with an unprecedented multi- million-dollar settlement of multiple lawsuits. These lawsuits were brought by owners of a neighboring property to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client in which they alleged an adverse possession claim against the client’s property, the last remaining vacant plot in a Westchester County multi-parcel subdivision. 

Despite submitting multiple notices to the neighbors, without objection, at key stages of development, the neighbors claimed that they owned a portion of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client’s parcel based on decades of purported use. After failing to wrangle a quick settlement, the neighbor filed multiple lawsuits before three different justices; (a) claiming adverse possession of the disputed portion of the neighboring property, (b) lodging a nuisance complaint about machinery noise to curtail construction and seek damages, and (c) attempting to enjoin our client and the local Westchester Township from pursuing permits or construction on the entire property (beyond the disputed area) pending resolution of the separate adverse possession lawsuit. The neighbors then harnessed the multiple suits to bring motion after motion – often at the same time – in an attempt to frustrate construction and force our client to sell the property to the neighbors at a steep discount. 

Despite the behemoth of litigation in front of them, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. not only managed to defeat each and every motion in sharply worded decisions, it disqualified the neighbor’s initial counsel and maintained our client’s right to develop the property despite the ongoing litigation.  

Finally, in the first in-person courtroom settlement conference in Westchester County since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. secured an unprecedented, multi-million-dollar settlement whereby the neighbors committed to purchase our client’s entire parcel for one of the highest sales prices ever proposed in Westchester County for an undeveloped single-home parcel of its size. 

Developments: 

In an apparent case of buyer’s remorse, the neighbors quickly sought to renege on their purchase, realizing that they were paying much more than the property was worth. Despite the clear terms of the in-court settlement, they refused to comply in a time sensitive closing, seeking numerous concessions, representations, and warranties that were specifically prohibited by the settlement. In order to secure court intervention, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. meticulously documented the neighbors’ concerted efforts to back-pedal from their commitment as well as their duplicitous attempts to renegotiate promise after promise despite the clear terms of the settlement. After the initial closing date passed, through written submissions by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. and numerous remote conferences, the Court became equally fed-up with the neighbor’s actions and advised Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to move to compel settlement. After it became apparent that the neighbors would only respond to further aggressive litigation, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. and its clients made the difficult but necessary decision to file a substantial omnibus motion, intricately detailing every aspect of the neighbor’s intransigence with more than 30 exhibits, seeking to enforce the settlement agreement, impose sanctions on the neighbors, and force the sale to close without haste. 

Within days of receiving the firm’s massive and well-documented motion to enforce, the neighbor reached out to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. The parties then quickly appeared for a second in-person conference. Working closely with the same justice that presided over the original settlement, the parties agreed to close within two weeks on essentially the same terms as the original settlement despite the neighbors’ attempts to, yet again, delay settlement for seemingly no other reason than their client’s spiteful attitude. In order to ensure that the neighbors would, indeed, comply this time, the Court agreed that Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. and its client could secure the Court’s assistance without notice if the neighbors refused to close as promised. Two weeks later, the parties closed on the exact material terms Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had previously negotiated, including dismissal with prejudice of all three related lawsuits, releases of all claims against its client, and a multi-million dollar payout far exceeding the market. 

Throughout the two and a half years of litigation, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s Supreme Court Litigation Practice Group outpaced, outmaneuvered, and outlawyered the neighbors and their counsel to secure an absolute victory for its client on all fronts. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s Supreme Court Litigation Practice Group in this matter was led by Eric S. Askanase, Adam Leitman Bailey, and Joshua M. Filsoof. Tom Furst of the Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Real Estate Transaction Group handled the property sale on behalf of our client. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Persuades Sponsor of Condominium to Fix Building Issues

In 2018, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by a group of unit owners at a prominent new construction condominium in lower Manhattan. There were numerous defects in the construction of their 150-unit building. The sponsor still controlled the board of managers and had only been performing band-aid repairs. The issues ranged from missing firestopping, façade defects, and ventilation issues to poor quality window and hardwood floor installations. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. jumped into action to assist the group of unit owners in getting their building fixed using a protocol that Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has successfully implemented on myriad buildings. 

The first step was to engage an engineer, on behalf of the client, to conduct a top-to-bottom building investigation. The purpose of having Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. retain the engineer instead of the client is to preserve the confidentiality of the findings. 

Once the engineer was retained, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. assisted the client in arranging access for the engineer throughout the building and individual units that were experiencing issues. This process typically takes a number of months, depending on the size of the building. 

Next, the engineer prepared a comprehensive forensic report detailing each of the issues, ranging from more severe (life safety issues) to less severe (cosmetic issues). Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. then reviewed the report and worked with the engineer to make it as persuasive as possible, before sending it along with a Notice of Claim letter to the building’s sponsor/developer. 

From that point, given our firm’s reputation, the sponsor is generally quick to commence repairing the building. In this case, the sponsor fixed nearly all of the issues identified in the engineering report. This was a major win for our client and saved the building hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of dollars in repairs that it would have otherwise had to take on itself. 

Had the sponsor not taken on the repairs after receiving the engineering report, we would have engaged in settlement meetings with the parties, engineers and attorneys for both sides present. This is often a step we take in settling construction defect cases, as it enables the parties and, more importantly, their respective engineers, the opportunity to sit down and discuss the defects and agree on next steps for each (i.e., additional probes, testing, and/or sponsor’s agreement to fix by a date certain). 

Adam Leitman Bailey and Rachel Sigmund McGinley represented the client in this matter. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Obtains a Preliminary Injunction and an Order of Contempt Against Holdover Licensees Illegally Using a New York City Apartment as a Single Room Occupancy Dwelling and for Short-Term Occupancy

In a New York County Supreme Court ejectment action, Adam Leitman Bailey P.C., prevailed on a motion for a temporary restraining order, then obtained an order of contempt against the non-complying occupants based on their illegal and dangerous use of a Class A apartment as a de facto single room occupancy dwelling and short-term rental enterprise. 

The rent stabilized tenant of record of the apartment recently died, leaving behind multiple unauthorized occupants. Seeking to recover possession of the apartment, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. served the occupants with notices to quit alleging that the occupants were licensees of the deceased tenant, whose occupancy rights terminated when the tenant of record died. The occupants not only refused to vacate, but they subdivided the apartment by installing locks on individual bedroom doors and permitted others to occupy small portions of the apartment for short-term durations, which is illegal in New York. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. commenced a Supreme Court ejectment action asserting causes of action for ejectment and injunction based on the occupants’ holding over after the expiration of the notice to quit, and, in the alternative, the occupancy being illegal due to the occupants’ use of the premises for an illegal trade and business. We immediately moved by order to show cause for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the occupants from (i) using the premises as a de facto, single room occupancy dwelling, (ii) using the premises for an illegal trade or business by subletting the premises and installing transient occupants in the premises on an illegal short-term basis (less than 30 days), and (iii) collecting rent or use and occupancy for the premises. The Court granted the motion. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. then moved for final judgment seeking ejectment of the occupants from the premises and a writ of assistance to remove the occupants from the apartment. In the meantime, we served the court’s injunction order on the occupants, which they ignored. We then moved for an order of contempt, arguing that the occupants willfully disregarded an unequivocal order of the court. We sought civil penalties against the occupants based on their violations of the court’s restraining order. The court granted the motion holding the occupants in contempt and awarded civil penalties to our client. The court also granted our motion for a preliminary injunction. 

Vladimir Mironenko, partner in Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s Landlord-Tenant and Litigation Departments and Adam Leitman Bailey represented the landlord. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Wins Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Judgment of Possession Against Nuisance Apartment Occupant Despite Ban on Evictions

Representing a residential landlord in a Supreme Court ejectment action, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was tasked with securing possession of an apartment; second, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was charged with protecting the safety and quiet enjoyment of the apartments of neighboring residents against an unauthorized nuisance occupant left over when the tenant of record vacated the apartment, but failed to remove the occupant. 

The tenant of record of the free market apartment installed an occupant who (according to neighbors and building staff) terrorized the apartment complex, its residents, and staff by, among other things, routinely yelling at, harassing, following, threatening, videotaping, and taking pictures of residents and staff; kicking residents’ doors; physically assaulting a resident; throwing furniture, garbage, and food into the common areas of the building; and even hiring a locksmith on several occasions to replace public area locks in the complex without owner’s authorization. 

With housing court at a standstill due to various COVID-19 related laws and procedural roadblocks, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., brought the case to the Supreme Court, asserting causes of action of, among others, declaratory judgment that the occupant has no rights or claim to the apartment, injunction enjoining the occupant from occupying or possessing the apartment, and ejectment seeking a writ of assistance to remove the occupant from the apartment. 

Upon starting the action, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. immediately moved by order to show cause for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction enjoining the occupant from occupying the apartment. We argued that the occupant had no rights to the apartment, including, because he had no landlord-tenant relationship with the owner and that the safety of other residents was in immediate danger. The court awarded a temporary restraining order. 

We then moved for final judgment on the causes of action for declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, and ejectment. We argued that the COVID-19 related statutory stay did not apply since the occupant never submitted a hardship declaration, and that even were the occupant to submit one, no stay was applicable due to the nuisance exception set forth in the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 (“CEEFPA”). 

The court granted our motion in its entirety (i) declaring that the occupant had no rights to the apartment, (ii) issuing a permanent injunction enjoining the occupant from using or possessing the apartment, and (iii) directing judgment of possession in favor of our client with the issuance of a writ of assistance to remove the occupant from the apartment. 

Adam Leitman Bailey and Vladimir Mironenko of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. represented the landlord in the Supreme Court action.

Shady Business Dealings, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secures Favorable Settlement For Its Client

In a case where an investor was swindled by his business partner, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to quickly secure a settlement saving its client’s investment.

The investor purchased a property with the intent of developing and constructing a residential property to sell.  In order to develop this new residential property, the investor entered in a joint development agreement with a builder.

The builder ended up taking out multiple mortgages on the property all to the detriment of the investor. Despite taking out the mortgages to complete the construction on the residential property, the builder did not complete construction of the property.  It became apparent that the builder, along with the attorney that was supposed to represent the joint development, was engaging in a scheme to defraud the investor of his equity in the property. It was so blatant that the same attorney represented one of the lenders that gave the builder – who the attorney also simultaneously represented – a mortgage that was secured against the property.

Right on schedule to strip the equity from the investor’s property, the first position mortgage holder commenced a foreclosure action.  In response, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. filed a comprehensive answer with counterclaims and crossclaims.  Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. brought into the action the builder and attorney as defendants to uncover the fraud that was perpetrated against our client.  The first position mortgage holder moved to dismiss the counterclaims set forth in the answer, but Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. opposed the application recounting all the instances of alleged fraud.

Given the strength of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s papers, a favorable settlement was reached where the investor client was able to sell the property, satisfy the outstanding mortgages for a significantly reduced amount, and walk away with profits from his investment.

Adam Leitman Bailey, Esq., and Danny Ramrattan, Esq., at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. secured this result for its client.

Demolition: One of the Last Ways to Deregulate a Building

With the June 2019 passage of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), owners are desperately seeking ways out of rent regulation in an attempt to recapture the profitability their buildings previously had. Two such exit strategies are “substantial rehabilitation,” available only to deteriorated buildings, and “demolition,” generally available to rent-stabilized buildings regardless of their condition.

ADMINISTERING RENT REGULATION

Governing the demolition process is the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)’s Operational Bulletin 2009-1. This bulletin deals with demolition applications for three scenarios: rent control, rent stabilization, and non-New York City rent stabilization. The rules are radically stricter for rent-controlled apartments than for New York City rent stabilization. In these matters, the courts grant extreme deference to the DHCR. Under its administration, the DHCR has worked without a specific definition of “demolition,” but an intent to gut the interior of the building, while leaving the walls intact, has been held as sufficient. Use of the process is mandatory; self-help is prohibited. The building need not be razed to the ground.

STIPENDS

An essential part of the entire process is the system of stipends. The landlord has not only to be prepared to pay the stipends, but to prove to the DHCR it has the ability to do so.

Each tenant who is being evicted is entitled to receive from the landlord the tenant’s reasonable moving expenses. This means that in order to make the application, the landlord is going to have to come up with estimates as to what the moving expenses will be. Landlords can and must obtain from a moving company estimated costs based on room count for a move entirely within NYC. The moving expenses are in addition to the other stipend discussed below.

There are provisions for reducing the stipends, but these are based on tenant conduct, and the application process must assume that each tenant will receive the full stipend to which he is entitled. The deduction cannot be known at the time of the initial application because it consists of a reduction of one-sixth for each month the tenant stays past the time allowed under the order (and lease) to remain in the premises, a figure unknowable until the order has actually been issued.

In the stipending system, the landlord has three options:

Moving the tenant to a new apartment at the same or lower regulated rent near or in the building being built. For such tenants, the stipend is $5,000. This option entails the landlord finding the new apartment.Moving the tenant to a more expensive apartment where the landlord prepays six years’ worth of the difference in rent. This option also entails the landlord finding the new apartment.Using the stipend chart from the Operational Bulletin, where the landlord pays the tenant for a minimum of three rooms, the difference between the current rent and the chart’s stipend amount as adjusted by the RGB increases issued since the Operational Bulletin ($639.21 in 2019), multiplied by the number of rooms and further multiplied by 72. This, the most popular option, entails the landlord having no obligation to find the new apartment.

Tenants who would lose governmental benefits because of the stipends may waive them.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR RENT CONTROL

Demolition is only a ground for removal from rent control if the landlord is putting up a new building that has at least 20 percent more apartments than the old building, except if the cost of repairing the violations in the building exceeds the assessed value of the building. Then it need not be more than one more apartment in the new building, unless the building is already largely vacant. The landlord must move the rent-controlled tenants to a new apartment. The building permits must already be in place. The landlord must demonstrate that there is no reasonable possibility that the landlord can make a net annual return of 8.5 percent of the assessed value of the subject property and that lower return is not the landlord’s fault.

THE STEPS

Not all buildings are well suited for a demolition application. Unlike “substantial rehabilitation,” there is no requirement that the building be in deteriorated condition in order to qualify for a demolition application. If a building is genuinely eligible for demolition treatment, the DHCR does not have the discretion to refuse the application.

Landlords will want to buy out rent-controlled tenants before anyone knows demolition is in the air. However, landlords must exercise extreme caution in these buyout negotiations as they can readily run afoul of the anti-harassment provisions of the law such as those found in the New York City Administrative Code.

It is not necessary to pre-approve loans, but the owner has to be able to demonstrate that either the deed owner of the building or a closely related entity has the wherewithal for the project, if not necessarily cash on hand. The DHCR examines not only the ability to pay for the tearing down of the building, but all of the other expenses associated with the project. The DHCR specifies in its publications what these expenses should minimally include.

THE APPLICATION

The application is actually a fairly simple form to which one attaches such additional documents as appear useful. The agency’s discretion lies in determining whether to authorize a refusal to offer lease renewals based on whether:

The applicant has established financial ability to demolish building;Plans for the undertaking have been approved by the appropriate agency; andThe applicant has complied with statutory provisions for the relocation of rent-stabilized tenants, reimbursement of moving expenses, and payment of stipends.

Neither the DHCR nor the courts will allow extensive discovery. Various proofs of financial ability are possible. If the financing is through a closely related entity, the landlord’s application should be explicit in setting forth that relationship.

Enough copies of the application must be provided to the DHCR for them to serve each tenant. Since the attachments can get lengthy, this can mean significant printing expenses. It is not necessary that the actual building permits be attached to the application as it takes so much time for the DHCR to go through its procedure in approving the application that the permits would become stale. However, where applicable, Certificates of No Harassment must be pulled as prerequisites to the permits and they too can become stale if pulled too soon. Such certificates are themselves a lengthy procedure, the details of which are outside the scope of this article. Any Golub or eviction notices already issued should be attached to the application. The application should include engineering and architectural plans with the financials including specific reference to those specific plans.

Once the application has been filed, the owner can immediately stop renewing leases. This requires issuing Golub notices to all the tenants. These are served in the normal rent stabilization methods, either by regular or certified mail.

The DHCR has exacting requirements for the contents of the Golub notice which drafters must precisely follow.

Rents cannot be increased for any reason during the pendency of the application. If the application is denied, the owner loses the increases that could have been charged and lease renewals are made on the usual 90-day notice to the tenants, with rents frozen until the offer is accepted. The DHCR will direct such other proceedings as it determines, which could even include evidentiary hearings, but will not necessarily include such hearings. The DHCR has historically taken an inordinately long time to process the application, but there are ways to facilitate the process.

The landlord selects apartments if using the two methods for calculating the stipends that entail selecting apartments. The tenant has a right to challenge the suitability of the selected apartment.

The landlord pays the stipends when the tenants move. Tenants’ delay or refusal to move reduces or eliminates their entitlement to the stipend and subjects them to eviction proceedings. Tenants have until the later of the expiration of their lease or the date set forth in the DHCR’s order to move out. If they do not move out on their own, the actual eviction of the tenants is by way of an ordinary holdover eviction proceeding in Civil Court. However, if the owner has a favorable decision from the DHCR, there is nearly nothing to prove in that proceeding, making it amenable to summary judgment.

Demolition proceedings before the DHCR are extremely technical and require precise adherence to the exacting requirements of the various laws. Expect these applications to take years and be battled in the courts. However, they are also one of very few options rent-regulated landlords have left to restore profitability to their properties and deregulate buildings with rent-regulated apartments in the aftermath of the new draconian laws.

Adam Leitman Bailey is the founding partner of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.

The Surfside Condo Collapse: Lessons for New York

The disastrous condo collapse in Surfside, Florida of the 40-year-old Champlain Towers South condominium tower should set off alarm bells in New York City, wherein it is estimated there presently are more than 1 million buildings, many of which are more than 100 years old, including several in Manhattan that were converted to cooperative apartment buildings in the 1970s and 1980s, in addition to the hundreds of high-rise condominium buildings built more recently, in the 1990s and 2000s, primarily in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens.

NEW YORK LAWS

Overall, New York has a much better governance system of the exterior (and a few interior items) of tall buildings than does Florida. At the same time, although we will not have buildings collapsing into the ocean, we do have major potential problems that need to be addressed. Since 1980, New York City, unlike Florida, has had laws in place requiring mandatory inspection and repair of building facades. The latest iteration of the law, the Façade Inspection and Safety Program (FISP) (formerly known as Local Law 1), RCNY § 103-04 (“Periodic Inspection of Exterior Walls and Appurtenances of Buildings”) was recently updated in February 2020, to include additional inspection items, increased levels of inspection and more comprehensive documentation. The law requires that all buildings in New York City higher than six stories have all of their exterior walls and appurtenances (including, among other things, fire escapes, exterior fixtures, ladders to rooftops, parapets, copings, balcony and terrace enclosures, greenhouses and solariums, and any other equipment attached to or protruding from the façade) inspected in five-year cycles. The current cycle 9 (2-21-20 to 2-21-25) requires that all buildings be inspected, on a staggered schedule, in one of three sub-cycles: 2020–2022, 2021–2023, and 2022–2024. Inspections must be conducted by Qualified Exterior Wall Inspectors (QEWI) with at least seven years of relevant experience to be qualified.

However, while FISP scaffolds or other observation platforms are a routine fact of life on the streets of New York, there is currently no law, in either New York City or anywhere else in New York state, that mandates inspection and repair of the interior structural elements of any building whatever its size. FISP provides no assurance that the type of structural defects that led to the Champlain Towers collapse will be detected unless the structural elements of all buildings are subject to regular routine inspection. Indeed, the mandatory evacuation of a 70-year-old three-story building, a few blocks away from the Champlain Tower site, one month after the headline-grabbing event,[1] evidences the need for mandated, comprehensive and regularly scheduled inspections of both interior and exterior structural elements of buildings of all sizes. The FISP law needs to be expanded to cover major components and the ability to identify interior of buildings as well as their exteriors.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING BUILDING STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND REPAIRS

In the meantime, in the absence of mandated governmental requirements for interior structural inspections (other than for elevators, boilers and gas piping, which are subject to regularly scheduled inspections) building owners (including both commercial and private landlords, cooperative apartment corporations and condominium boards) must themselves assume the burden and responsibility of implementing the prudential actions necessary to ensure the continuing structural stability of their buildings.

However, the cost of maintaining and repairing interior structural building elements, for both old and new structures, can be daunting. Nevertheless, landlords (whether commercial or residential, including cooperatives and condominiums), as a matter of prudent management, and/or pursuant to any applicable statutory or contractual lease obligations, need to maintain sufficient reserve funds to address capital repairs, improvements and replacements required for their existing tenants’ health and safety.

Similarly, sponsors seeking to convert buildings with residential tenants to condominium ownership must comply with New York City’s Reserve Fund Law,[2] which mandates that they provide sufficient funds to create the reserves that will be necessary for capital repairs, improvements and health and safety items required in the future operation of the condominium. The law requires that sponsor-created reserve funds be at least equal to a statutorily calculated minimum of no less than 3% of the total price that was offered to tenants in occupancy prior to the effective date of the conversion plan regardless of the number of sales made. This law should be expanded to all cooperatives and condominiums and not only buildings converting to condominium, as too many buildings do not carry enough reserves or refuse to spend money to repair buildings, putting its residents in danger.

Nevertheless, aside from normal maintenance costs, which either rent, maintenance payments or common charges are expected to cover, the potential costs, which could be incurred in repairing the kind of structural damage that would cause a similar Champlain Towers-like disaster, are formidable and most likely would be well in excess of whatever amount of reserve funds a building’s management is likely to accrue, even over several years. This is especially true of buildings with residents and board members who have fixed incomes and are reluctant to assess unit owners for the kind of sums necessary to do any extraordinary structural repairs. It is reported that the Champlain Towers president had told residents in April, when there was only $700,000 in the building’s reserve fund, that the building was in desperate need of repair and that $15 million in assessments were needed for the work that was required.3

Apparently, there was unit owner resistance to any assessment of that size at Champlain Towers, and such resistance to assessments of any size is often found in any number of condos and co-ops in New York City. Bylaws often include provisions requiring a 66 2/3 (or higher) percentage of owners or shareholders to approve costs for necessary repairs or renovations above specified limited amounts. The Champlain Tower experience should spur condo and co-op boards to revisit their bylaws and consider amending them to be less restrictive. There should be minimum approval required when there is evidence certified by independent engineers and architects that more than “Band-Aid” repairs are necessary to protect the structural integrity of the building. Moreover, assessments are likely to be less burdensome at the early stages of a detectible structural defect than later when, after the situation has been left to fester for several years, the defective condition has reached a critical level.

It is therefore incumbent on building owners to seek ways of accumulating the reserve funds needed to address the kind of extraordinary structural repairs without which a Champlain Towers-like disaster could occur. However, in the event that the likely causes of such a tragedy go undetected and the unthinkable does occur, building owners need to be prepared for the aftermath and have protection, not only against the property losses and damages that they will suffer, but also respecting the personal and property damages for which they could be held liable by their residents and other third parties. The actions building owners should implement are similar to those prudential steps that many building owners have taken in the aftermath of terrorist acts, catastrophic hurricanes, and other severe weather events.[4].

LITIGATION CONSIDERATIONS IN BUILDING DISASTER CASES

In any litigation arising from a Champlain Towers-like disaster, a court is likely to consider all of the above factors in assessing the various liability issues that will affect the owners and lessees of the real estate (landowners as individuals and ground lessors, landlords, cooperative apartment corporations and incorporated condominiums), officers of landlords, board members of cooperative apartment corporations and condominiums, officers and property managers of managing agencies, contractors who constructed the building, architects and engineers who designed or certified the project, building inspectors who signed-off on the project and all of the respective insurance companies of each of them.

The primary liability issues for each potential plaintiff and defendant will be the foreseeability of the event and what actions the particular party defendant, third-party defendant or cross-claim defendant did or failed to do when apprised of evidence of the structural defects that likely caused the resulting building disaster. Such issues are not unlike those the court examined in connection with the duties of the owners of buildings and the duties of other defendants involved in the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bombing.[5] In addition, New York’s Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 (Repairs) mandates that “[e]very multiple dwelling, including its roof or roofs, and every part thereof and the lot upon which it is situated, shall be kept in good repair,” and that the “owner shall be responsible for compliance with the provisions of this section, but the tenant also shall be liable if a violation is caused by his own willful act, assistance or negligence . . . .”

A CASE ILLUSTRATING THE VARIOUS LIABILITIES

The case of Fitzgerald v. 667 Hotel Corp.[6] provides a useful example of how the liabilities of the various parties involved in a building collapse are likely to be determined by the courts. This also, most likely, would determine the liabilities of the parties’ respective insurance carriers. In 667 Hotel Corp., 43 consolidated actions arose out of the collapse on August 3, 1973 of the Broadway Central Hotel, located at 673 Broadway – a building constructed in the 1850s, which had undergone various alterations over the years. Four persons were killed in the wreckage, many others injured and a number of businesses incurred substantial property damage. The defendants were, among others, the owners of the building, the net lessee, the mortgagee, a tenant who was having structural renovation done on its portion of the premises, and the contractor the tenant employed for that purpose. The City of New York was also named as a defendant, as the Department of Buildings had been made aware of the hazardous state of the building and had failed to act to cause the defect to be remedied or the building to be vacated.

Extensive renovations had been done to the building by the net lessee. In January 1973, the president of the net lessee called the attention of the managing engineer of the building to cracks that were extending through the interior bearing wall and buckling the frames of the double doors going through it. The lessee’s own contractor and architect, who inspected the cracks, concluded that the cracking was a structural danger. The chief building inspector for the Borough of Manhattan then personally inspected the premises on January 29, 1973. He agreed that the bulging of the exterior wall and the diagonal crack through the weight-bearing wall was a serious defect in the bearing wall and that an architect or engineer should take immediate remedial action. He opined that the building was not in imminent danger of collapse, but that, if the condition were not remedied, it would gradually become more dangerous. However, the inspector failed to observe that the crack extended all the way up to the eighth floor. He did not issue any violation respecting the crack in the weight-bearing wall and made no personal effort to follow up. A violation was issued only for the bulging front façade and made no mention of the cracked weight-bearing wall. A consulting architect proposed several plans for correcting the bulge and crack in the front wall, but the lessees of the hotel opted for the cheapest solution. Nevertheless, no plan had been approved by the Department of Buildings by the date of the collapse.

At trial, the Kings County borough superintendent of the Department of Buildings testified that the failure of the city building inspectors to write a comprehensive building order on the day the bearing wall cracks were observed, and to have made no explicit mention of it in the violation order, was a departure from proper procedure. As a result, a hazardous building violation was not issued and a court order was not obtained for immediate vacating of the building and repair within 10 days. By July, the conditions were observably worsening and, on August 3, the need for an immediate building evacuation was clear, as there was pressure on the sprinklers, cracking sounds within the building and rumbling noises that continued until 5:10 p.m. when there was an explosive sound, the lights went out, the sprinklers broke and the building collapsed.

The Supreme Court held the owners of the building 25% liable, the net lessee 45% liable and the City of New York 30% liable. Although the premises were under a net lease, the owners had a right to enter and inspect the premises and make repairs, and the court held them liable (citing Appell v. Muller[7]), for failing in the duties imposed upon them under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78. The net lessee, 667 Hotel Corporation, was held liable because  simply retaining an architect after the building inspection did not satisfy its duties. No repairs were undertaken, and such plans as were filed with the building department, even if they had been implemented, would not have prevented the collapse. The mortgagee defendant was not held liable because it never became a mortgagee in possession, nor assumed possession or control over the premises, and, therefore, never assumed any obligation under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 for the necessary repairs that were required. The court held the city liable for “its total lack of action in the face of danger” that would have prevented the collapse, and its failure “[gave] rise to tort recovery.” On appeal the Appellate Division affirmed, but modified the judgment, holding that the city was entitled to be indemnified by the owners. However, the Court of Appeals held that the city should not have been held liable, explaining that “in the absence of some special relationship creating a duty to exercise care for the benefit of particular individuals, liability may not be imposed on a municipality for failure to enforce a statute or regulation . . . even though [the building inspectors] knew of the dangerous structural conditions in the building.”[8]

INSURANCE ISSUES

Cases against insurance carriers by property owners are determined primarily by the language of the insurance contracts. In Rector St. Food Enters., Ltd. v. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Connecticut,[9] the subject policy specifically defined its additional collapse coverage for collapse with respect to buildings as meaning “an abrupt falling down or caving in” and provided that “[a] building that is standing is not considered to be in a state of collapse even if it shows evidence of cracking, bulging, sagging, leaning, settling, shrinkage or expansion.” The court held that, although the building was demolished by its owner after the city declared an immediate emergency and “even though the building required demolition, the event resulting in the loss was not covered by the provision of defendant insurer’s policy insuring against loss attributable to ‘abrupt’ collapse.”[10]

In contrast, in Hudson 500 LLC v. Tower Ins. Co. of New York,[11] the policy did not expressly require that there be an “abrupt falling down or caving in.” The carrier nevertheless contended that the insured did not suffer a compensable “collapse,” as that term was used in the policy “because no part of the building ever fell down.” Nevertheless, the court held that the term “collapse” “does not require the total destruction of the building, but, rather, only a substantial impairment of the structural integrity of a building,” citing Royal Indemity Company v. Grunberg,[12] and noting that “where a collapse has occurred, the fact that cracking and bulging also occur should not prevent coverage for collapse since it would be hard to imagine a collapse that did not include some cracking or bulging of walls.”[13]

In D’Agostino Excavators, Inc. v. Globe Indemnity Company,[14] where an insured excavator sought to recover from its liability carrier, because of a judgment against the excavator for damages to walls and structure following negligent operation of insured’s bulldozer, the court held that the policy rider was limited to coverage for collapse or injury to any building structure directly due solely to excavation or filling or backfilling and did not include injury due to impact between the insured’s bulldozer and the affected property.

In Burack v. Tower Insurance Company of New York,[15] the court held that genuine issues of fact existed as to whether the insured’s building collapsed because of the shifting of earth by actions of third parties on the adjoining property’s construction site, which would fall within the policy’s exclusion provisions, and not because of the movement of earth from natural phenomena, which was the hazard covered by the policy.

These cases show that property owners need to scrutinize the exclusion provisions of the policies they purchase to ensure that they are covered for conditions that may lead to collapses, so as to be able to recover the cost of repairing such conditions before an “abrupt falling down or caving in” actually occurs.

CONCLUSION

The above discussion shows that the Champlain Towers building disaster clearly raises issues for New York property owners and lessees because of the many buildings of advanced age within the five boroughs. Although many protections are in place in New York, the additional protections proposed would greatly fortify our state. It is also important, therefore, that all parties subject to potential liabilities that could arise from either complete or partial building collapses take prudential action to maintain their buildings “in good repair” and to obtain insurance policies that will provide the coverage required for all possible forms of structural building defects, to ensure that there will be sufficient funding available to remedy hazardous conditions before they reach critical stages and to protect against the liabilities that will follow if a disaster that could have been avoided should ever occur.

Adam Leitman Bailey is the founding partner of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., and John M. Desiderio is the chair of the firm’s real estate litigation group.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-surfside-fla-condo-is-evacuated-after-building-deemed-unsafe-11626895331.

[2] Local Law 70 of 1982, Title 26, Chapter 8 of the New York City Administrative Code, 26-701 et seq.

[3] Alex Leary, Miami-Area Condo Collapse Sparks Calls for Tighter Laws, Wall St. J., July 10, 2021,  https://www.wsj.com/articles/miami-area-condo-collapse-sparks-calls-for-tighter-laws-11625922002.

[4] See Adam Leitman Bailey and John M. Desiderio, Preparing Practitioners for the Next Disaster, https://www.alblawfirm.com/articles/preparing-practitioners.

[5] See, In re World Trade Center Bombing Litig., 3 Misc. 3d 440 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2004).

[6] 103 Misc. 2d 89 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1980), aff’d sub nom., Worth Distributors, Inc. v. Latham, 88 A.D.2d 814 (1st Dep’t 1982), aff’d as modified, 59 N.Y.2d 231 (1983).

[7]  262 N.Y. 278 (1933).

[8] Worth Distributors, Inc., 59 N.Y.2d at 237.

[9] 35 A.D.3d 177 (1st Dep’t 2006).

[10] Id. at 178.

[11] 22 Misc. 3d 878 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2008)

[12] 155 A.D.2d 187, 189 (3d Dep’t 1990).

[13] Hudson 500, LLC, 22 Misc. 3d at 885.

[14] 7 A.D.2d 483 (1st Dep’t 1959).

[15] 12 A.D.3d 167 (1st Dep’t 2004).