Our experience with this building was outrageous. Because it is a rental building, we knew not to expect too much, but it disappointed (understatement) even our low expectations. In the interest of getting information to any prospective renter who comes to StreetEasy looking for information on the building, below is what we experienced:
(1) Something was wrong with the both the heat and the AC; we froze in the winter and boiled in the summer;
(2) We vacated the apartment two months before the end of our lease because we chose to double pay rent for two months rather than stay in the building because we found it oppressive. I will not go into all the details, but if you find yourself in this building and come to understand what I mean here, remember, you were warned.
(3) We left the unit in pristine condition and paid our rent through the end of the term. The landlord ignored repeated requests for a walk through.
(4) Months after we vacated the apartment, we had received no communication whatsoever from the landlord regarding our security deposit. We had to ask for it multiple times and had to threaten to sue to get it back.
(5) We finally got our security deposit back, only to learn that 20% has been withheld for absurd reasons that can't possibly stand up in court. We will get the remainder of our security deposit back through a lawyer, but want to put the word out on this building and this landlord - we cannot possibly be the only ones who have had an experience like this with this building? If anyone has had a similar experience with this building or has a good recommendation for an attorney, we would appreciate the information. We are just over the small claims court limit so we need go to regular court. There is an attorneys fees provision in the lease that is reciprocal by statute, so any attorney who takes it on will get paid by landlord if we win; paid by us if we lose.

See Beekman International vs. Concise Management. Items of damage alleged therein are virtually identical to those landlord is claiming against you. (Background: I know foolishrenter and advised her to join Streeteasy; I am posting publicly despite having already given this information to foolishrenter privately in the interest of getting the word out on what could be a pattern or just a freak coincidence. Prospective tenants who want to do due diligence will have to judge for themselves).

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/31701-rental-at-351-east-51st-street

someone else who was less than impressed with the building ~

It was actually that discussion that led me to encourage foolishrenter to join streeteasy.

The facts of the Concise case are at http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2009AUG/3001118602008001SCIV.pdf. Hard to imagine a landlord trying to come up with enough stuff to keep a $60K security deposit, but this one tried. Apparently it was settled.

Any attorney recommendations?

Also, allegations of ongoing litigation between a unit owner and the developer are consistent with what you experienced. See http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/new-york/other-courts/2011-ny-slip-op-32176-u-7.pdf?ts=1323904927.

This is a good one. A $500/day fine for not giving them a key....

We have found an attorney (no thanks to any of you I might add), so I will close out my warning with the following comments to complete the circle with the other discussion about this building. I would say that the developer is an evil genius because we are evidence that there is a fool just one showing away. We do not care about getting the best deal and were fooled by the building's marketing. The landlord has withheld just a small enough amount that we are undecided about going through with legal action because it is not about the money - after all, we did pay $23,000 for an apartment that we left vacant because we found the landlord odious, so are we really going to take the time to pursue the additional $6000 of our money that the landlord has in his little clutches? Probably not, but had Streeteasy been on top of this building, we would not have rented there.

Fooish - Wow. Sorry about your experience, but sounds like you are handling it in good spirits. Thank you for sharing.
NYNovice - Also meant to thank yon on the other thread for link to Bauer litigation. I dug into it a little beyond link you posted and feel bad for original purchasers if allegations in third party complaint are true. One of main allegations is that offering plan did not disclose that sponsor intended to keep such a significant percentage of the building and run a rental building within the condo building, resulting in owners having no effective voice on the board and also being subject to constant stream of tenants (some apparently disgruntled!) who increase wear and tear on the building. I am not sure if that is actionable - does a sponsor have to disclose something like that? Is this a risk inherent in any new development?

multicityresident, my understanding is that it's a given that a sponsor doesn't have to sell its units and can just rent them out instead, like any other owner.

Where the thicket of NYS regulations comes in, is mostly with regard to sponsor control. Typical offering-plan language might say "Sponsor can't retain control of the board, even if its votes would allow it to, after 75% of units have sold or five years after first closing, whichever is earlier."

I'm pretty sure I've seen "sponsor doesn't have to sell" statements in those up-front "Special Risks" pages, but can't find an example.

Other examples of sponsors not selling are both branches of the Milsteins, in their Lincoln Center-area buildings. Every Sunday's paper has a display ad for their Dorchester Towers rentals, many years after conversion. On the same page there'll be big ads for both sales and rentals in their other buildings.

OK, here's the language from the Special Risks section of 15CPW's offering plan:

"8. (a) Sponsor has reserved the unconditional right to rent Units rather than sell Units. Because Sponsor is not limiting the conditions under which it will rent rather than sell Units, Sponsor is not committed to sell more units than the 15% necessary to declare the Plan effective and, therefore, owner-occupants may never gain effective control and management of the Condominium."

As it happened, the sponsor there didn't keep any units, though they probably wish they had.

NWT - Very helpful. Thank you.

Looks like there is an MSJ pending at the moment on this aspect of the case: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/C_PDF?CatID=750888&CID=110211-2011&FName=1
Complaint says there was no disclosure in the "Special Risks" section; Beekman International's MSJ appears to argue that there did not have to be. I have to say that absent a statutory requirement that there be such a disclosure, I would not think there would have to be one, and I would expect that to be a risk. But, if it is industry practice to put that in, that might change things. The on-line records library is only showing notice of motion and not all the moving papers, but I am curious as to how this will turn out. While I hope it settles for the parties' sake b/c I think settlement is always better, for my own education, I would love to see an opinion here.

"We do not care about getting the best deal and were fooled by the building's marketing."

Forget about "best deal", this place seems like the crappiest deal around from MCR's assessment on the other thread. If you want to spend this sort of money, you do a whole lot better. You were indeed a fool for not caring and falling for marketing, whatever that entails. So can you blame the LL for continuing to play you as a fool?

"... take the time to pursue the additional $6000 of our money that the landlord has in his little clutches? Probably not ..."

I guess the LL is playing you just right.

In any case, why hire an attorney for $6K? You can file small claims for $5K. It might not be worth your time, but I think that attitude and your repeated willingness to openly signal it is why you are being treated as a mark here.

Hopefully the veterans will lay off Foolish; I mean, her screen name suggests that she does accept responsibility for what turned out to be a poor fit for her. In any event, she does not appear to be alone in her dislike of the landlord. See http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/C_PDF?CatID=140543&CID=118728-2006&FName=0 Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but it was initiated by resident of another building in which the landlord appears to play a prominent role. A bit of a screed, but consistent with prior research.

But yes, the LL does appear to be playing her just right; I was with her until the last post, which she seems to have posted in response to my question on the other thread, so I guess that is why I am quasi-defending her. I don't want to pile on, and she actually did answer my question. There must be quite a number of foolish renters b/c those asking prices for those apartments are completely ridiculous. I reiterate that I did think the one I saw was lovely, but half-the-asking price lovely in light of competition. Then again, no apartment is lovely if the AC does not work well.

I wasn't intending to pile on, MCR. Just trying to explain how some actions will be taken advantage of by some people.

If you are wealthy and/or earn a lot, there are a tremendous number of things that are not worth your time. Some people will treat you fairly, charging you a fair price regardless. Others will use this knowledge to screw you. You need to be able to smell such leeches from afar and avoid them. Should you find yourself involved, backing down with the attitude of "not worth my time" only digs a deeper hole.

We did nothing to signal that we were easy marks before the landlord's first questionable move. We fought back throughout our tenancy, and now the situation is what it is. Thank you multicity resident for the link to the complaint against Dennis Herman regarding his alleged domination of another building and his harassent of a resident in that building. The allegations in that complaint ring completely true to us based on our personal experience. Here is our story:

Ours was a short-term need, so the alternative we were looking at was staying at The Phillips Club for $25,000 per month. We thought that rather than do that for 6 months, why not spend the same amount of money and get an apartment for a year. We are not upset at the amount of the rent; we are upset at the disturbing things we experienced at the hands of this landlord.

Specifically, during our first week at the apartment, the tenant across the hall complained about our dogs barking. That tenant, who we have since gotten to know and like quite a bit, had not been aware that dogs were even allowed in the building. We were mortified that our dogs had disturbed anyone and gladly agreed to to pay for soundproofing the front door. Problem solved. However, after that agreement was reached, the landlord, Dennis Herman, called my husband at work at work and threatened to evict us. What? Was he kidding? We thought that was odd and it made no sense. We were taken aback, but just ignored it.

After the front door was soundproofed, we followed up with the tenant across the hall and the building staff to make sure that the soundproofing had done the trick. Everybody assured us that there had been no subsequent complaints. Nevertheless, at some later date, we got a letter from the management company saying there had been "a number of complaints from our neighbors" about our dog barking. We were shocked. I immediately checked with the building staff and the neighbor, and they had no idea what the letter was about. Everybody assured me that there had been only that single complaint at the very beginning of our tenancy. I called the management company and never heard back.

Then, a few weeks later, the soundproofing guy showed up at our apartment and said he was going to soundproof the second bedroom at Beekman International's direction. I told him that there was no ongoing problem and we had not agreed to pay for soundproofing the second bedroom; he got on the phone in the hallway and came back a few minutes later saying that the landlord wanted to do it and was paying. A few weeks later, we received a bill for this additional soundproofing as "added rent"! I telephoned Dennis Herman, and he refused to speak with me, asserting that he would only speak with my husband about matters on the lease. This was despite the fact that I had taken care of everything regarding the lease with his staff up to that point. (A fellow tenant suggested that a man of Dennis Herman's build and stature might be intimidated by a tall and imposing woman; I assured him that such could not be the case because Mr. Herman and I have never met face to face).

Things deteriorated from there. We were then subject to numerous unscheduled maintenance visits and further questionable bills. In general, we felt harassed. Again, thank you multicity resident for the link above; we know exactly how that gentleman must have felt.

In terms of pursuing the relatively small amount of money that we feel Dennis Herman effectively stole from us ($3000 for fictitious damage to unit withheld from security deposit and $3500 in other questionable charges that we paid throughout the tenancy), we are wary, because to win, we need the honest testimony of the building staff. It is our impression that the building staff answers only to Dennis Herman, who is president of the condo board, and they all also appear to be terrified of him. In addition, we previously caught a staff member whose testimony would be key in a lie in one of our confrontations (the landlord backed down on that item because we had begun documenting everything, and the discrepancy between what members of the building staff were saying with respect to the issue in question made it undeniable that one of them was lying). If this landlord intimidates people into lying for him, and the judge believes them over us, then we lose and have to pay the landlord's legal fees.

Friend suggested that Dennis Herman may be all bluster because in the Concise Management case, where a number of the items of damage were identical to the three claimed against us [damaged stainless steel sink (does Dennis Herman have a cousin the sink business?), damage to wooden floor, and damage to windows from window treatments], the landlord pursued only until his attorney made a motion to withdraw because landlord was not paying his legal bills. Friend also informed us that Beekman International appears to change attorneys frequently and there may be a pattern there as well because in another matter (New Town Corp.), the only thing he sees in the electronic file is a motion for relief from Beekman International's attorney based on Beekman International's failure to pay fees. Friend advised us us to fight, and while we were thinking of letting it go, Dennis Herman has since called my husband and threatened to sue us for slander if we continued to challenge him. Again, outrageous.

So, my identity may well become a matter of public record in the near future through litigation filings related to the above. Time will tell. In the interim, I have no problem revealing my identity off-line. Should you wish to have additional details, please feel free to e-mail me at foolishrenter@hotmail.com. Regardless of how our dispute with Dennis Herman turns out, I will gladly testify under oath to everything I have written on here and assist anyone else who has or may have a problem with this man. In the interim, RENTER BEWARE: If you are currently renting from or thinking about renting from Dennis Herman/Beekman International, here is my advice based on my personal experience:

(1) Take pictures of EVERYTHING;

(2) Point out even the smallest scratch at the beginning of your tenancy, document it in writing and photograph it.

(3) Document every conversation with every member of the staff with a cc to the landlord.

(4) In terms of the lease, prior to signing, ask for a history of the utilities that landlord has billed to your particular unit on a monthly basis over the past two years. Ours for a small two bedroom were unbelievably high. This would have been troubling even if all systems had worked as they should have; it was outrageous given that neither the heat nor the AC worked as they should have. The apartment was intolerably hot in the summer and freezing in the winter. In the summer, the AC simply could not cool our floor; in the winter, no matter what we turned the heat to, the apartment got so hot that we'd then have to turn the heat off and open the window.

(5) Ask the landlord for some sort of temperature control guaranty with the right to terminate if temperature does not meet any agreed upon parameters.

(6) Bear in mind if you have a dog that the building requires you to use the service elevator to take the dog in and out. We had zero problem with this in theory; however, in practice, when we wanted to take the dogs out for that final walk of the day, the service elevator was frequently out of service while the staff took hours to collect the garbage from all of the floors. That would have been fine if the hours had been the same each night, but they weren't, so we could not even plan around this major inconvenience. Also, on days when someone is moving, the service elevator might be out of commission throughout the day; this was a huge problem on a few occasions for the morning walk.

(7) If a portion of your security deposit is withheld for damage to the stainless steel sink in the kitchen (that you never used), damage to the wooden floors (that you had covered in oriental rugs), or fictitious damage to the windows due to window treatments (that you installed through the building's recommended contractor whose COI included Dennis Herman), know that there is a pattern. Hopefully the myriad of pictures you will have taken at the beginning and end of your tenancy will protect you from this last absurdity.

(8) Even if you do all of the above, don't be surprised if Beekman International still tries to charge you for fictitious damage to the unit after you vacate, and be prepared to take the time to go to court. We really don't have the time to go to court over the money at issue, but we will make time if this man continues to harass us. At the end of the day, we don't really care about this man's keeping our money, and we will never have to deal with him again. However, referring back to the other discussion, we do hope the marketplace catches up with him, and information is key to having the marketplace function, so we are happy to do what we can in that respect. Again, feel free to contact me at foolishrenter@hotmail.com if you want to discuss further.

FR, I'm truly sorry for your experience with this a**hole. The good thing is that this discussion links to the StreetEasy page on the building. Does anyone know how to link Multi's screed, too?

Best of luck to you!

"We did nothing to signal that we were easy marks before the landlord's first questionable move. We fought back throughout our tenancy, and now the situation is what it is."

Look, the LL is an a-hole. I'm not defending him. I'm suggesting you view things from his perspective, from the perspective of an a-hole.

Your willingness to overpay market rent by a huge margin was a signal. It can mean one of two things:

1. You are clueless about where the market is.
2. You know where the market is, but the sum involved is not worth your time.

If you were an a-hole on the other side of this transaction, which you knew was one-time and could be squeezed for more, what would you do? This isn't Evil Genius, this is taught in A-hole 101.

If I were King, I'd smack them all silly. But I'm not, so until then I'm suggesting you enroll in Anti-A-hole 101.

I agree with Inonada that this guy is not an evil genius; sounds just like he is just a bully/A-hole. I also agree that anyone who pays anything close to what the landlord is asking for these apartments is signalling that they are an easy target out of the gate. Not trying to pile on Foolish, and I do thank you for sharing your experience, but I also want to be true to the Streeteasy community in my opinion. I'd say stay away from the building based on the absurd overreach in the asking price alone; to have a guy with the litigation history this guy has as a landlord would be a second, stand-alone reason to steer clear. It seems both renters and buyers should beware.

Yikes gets it - thank you. My husband and I are both seasoned professionals in our mid 40's and have never experienced anything like this. Also, sorry about the multiple postings with each of the rentals currently available in the building, but if a prospective tenant just went to an individual listing, there was no link to this discussion. There is something not right going on in this building. The complaint by the guy in 60 East 88th street makes a lot of sense. We actually thought the soundproofing guy might have been a buddy of the landlord's that he was trying to help out by giving extra work; we would have found that admirable had he not tried to pass the charge along to us. Each person will have to judge for themselves, but where there is smoke, there is fire. And of course I am not blaming streeteasy for our foolish decision and lack of diligence, but again, we are seasoned professionals in our mid-40's and are not in the habit of doing litigation checks on short term commitments and have never had an issue. We are also not in the habit of posting complaints in Internet chatrooms and we also have never been involved in litigation. For me to have taken the time to publicize this experience means something was really not right, but again, each individual will have to judge for him/herself. Just remember, if you choose to rent here, you were warned.

Good on you FoolishRenter! Hopefully this saves someone from a huge hassle. But you should sue them. Small claims court is very painless. You write down what happened. The other side, if they are in wrong settles. This is best way to truly right this wrong. I had to go this route once with my sponsor and was a bit initimidating at first, but worked out and felt better at the end.

to Foolish Renter: was the unit in the Beekman Regent a PH unit or one of the condos? Im thinking of renting there and just wanted some clarification?

Unit was PH unit. Here is the deal with the building from where I sit: There are individual condo owners in the building who would likely be delightful landlords. The building has many redeeming traits. The domination of the building by an entity/individual that is unprofessional at best/unethical and dishonest at worst can be a problem even for those who rent from the individual condo owners. More thorough litigation check on the entity/individual in question revealed that it/he has either sued or been sued by everyone from business partner, former employee (project manager for Beekman Regent and first VP of condo board), doorman, securities brokers, tenant, individuals who have purchased units in his buildings, and even a tenant of one such individual. For someone who is renting, this last litigation could be of some concern, depending on the strength of one's personality (it is the litigation that involved Andrew Stein at 60 East 88th Street). If you have a strong personality and call out Beekman International on nickel and dime tactics, my personal experience and the litigation history suggest that you will have a problem and will not find the building very homey. However, if you know that going in, there is always a price that makes sense for anything that has redeeming traits. The heat/AC issue is really the only one that was a deal breaker for us; while it did not bother me personally because my preferred temperature is 77 degrees, and I don't like AC, we could not be in our unit during July and August of 2011 because my husband really could not find any comfort. I don't know if this is a problem in the midfloors as well as on the top PH floors, but the Bauer litigation suggests that it might be. As a final note on the litigation history, the suits that have been filed are likely only the tip of the iceberg on the number of disputes that the entity/individual has had. As evidenced by our story, there are a number of people who decide that the money involved in a given dispute is not worth the time and effort of litigation. Note that if Beekman International had a history of paying its lawyers in a timely fashion, it would be an excellent client from a litigator's perspective; after all, if such entities and individuals did not exist, I would be out of work. The dream is to have a client with lots of money and anger management issues such that one is guaranteed a steady stream of cases without having to find new clients.