New York City
Northern New Jersey
Search Better With
Shop for a Broker
Open House Planner
Saved Listings & Folders
Stats and Figures
Manhattan Condo Market Index
Must say, after reading the real deal, that sixteeth amendment sounds pretty sleezy.
My layman's take on the 16th amendment was that there was no legal purpose, and that it's real purpose was to intimidate buyers.....
"Instead of offering the plaintiff the right to rescind the agreement, as required by the offering plan, the defendant sponsor's 16th amendment to the offering plan states that purchasers have no right of rescission related to the first closing," attorneys Philip Hines and Marc Held wrote in the complaint.
Did they really promise a doorman at both front and back entrances? Also did they promise a pilates room and remove it?
This refusal to abide by the contract and recind the money is preventing future buyers from purchasing condos in this bldg. I wish Extell would abide by the contract, recind the money, lift the cloud that hangs over this bldg and MOVE ON.
Extell -- for business reasons they alone know or understand -- doesn't seem to want to do anything the easy way. Maybe it's a deep-seated belief that any public sign of compromise will be seen as a weakness and only encourage more demands. A lot of landlords think this way. I think the 16th Amendment is forward looking, that is, they do not want people who sign contracts moving forward to use the past gaffs as an out. If it is viewed as a material change, then I would assume the current buyers who have not closed have a good case to get out. With only about 50 units closed (I am not sure where the person who viewed acris got the lower numbers), out of 247(??), the building does have an empty feel. Does any one have experience with the AG's office in matters like this? How long do they take to make a decision? And given the political reality, what are the chances theAG will duck, anddump it back on the courts?
what's hard to understand? if they agree now, they open the door for everyone who hasn't closed to walk away and possibly to get sued by the few unfortunates who have already closed. if they fight, they may lose or they may win.
54 recorded sales through the 8th, where seller was "CRP/EXTELL PARCEL I".
So ball park is 20% plus units that have uncontested deposits. Maybe 25% closings by year's end. If the 40 units that are challenging via the A.G. were to close that brings them up to maybe 50%. Even under that optimistic scenario, there will be a large number of units that will either be rented out, kept vacant or sold bulk to a venture buyer.
if 54 apartments represent 20%, how do 40 apartments represent 25%?
289 units here, 144 and 1/2 = 50%. give or take a few combos.
allotted 5% for units that intend to close....
how do you know they intend to close? saw it on youtube?
Folks -- Soory about the math errors, which may have created the tangent. I just attempted a quick and dirty estimate...289 units, 49 (now apparently higher) as closed...if it were 250 units, so I guesstimated it at about 20% closed (289 meant that it was like 18%??). Then I looked at the number in contract, but doubled 11 units that were"AB" or "CD" apartments, and figured if everything in contract closes, which, given the lawsuits are not really likely, it would mean that about half of the potential apartments would close, give or take. Somewhere on one of these boards someone said a power broker had bought 4-6 of the penthouse units, with the intention of selling some of them. So who knows if some listed for sale are actually under contract. Then again, we're talking about 12-18 million...Point being, that with 23 listed as available, many of those combination units, it means many. many more are still being kept off the market. If a bulk buyer -- defined as a purchaser of 5 or more units -- appears, it could help Extell off the hook, though not make a profit. That was the only point, not whether the numbers were precise. Of course, if Extell cuts a publicized deal with those in contract but who haven't closed they have another fight with those who closed without similar concessions. Dunno what legal recourse for those purchasers might have, though. But with about 100 or more units closed, the building will not seem like a ghost town. Extell must be looking for ways to reduce the monthly carrying costs by reducing amenities, like the hours of the health club or the number of support staff. From the outside, it is impossible to tell just how badly Extell is bleeding in just carrying costs, like Con Ed and insurance, above and beyond Hypo Bank interest payments.
The arithmetic is reasonable/ They have leeway to cut some amenities after first year(like kidville & la palestra & abigail michaels). And the offering plan states that some services kick in after 50% threshold...
The profit for the developer however is on the last 20% of units, so the pressure is still on to sell.
how would you know if the arithmetic is reasonable? you're still working on the last math problem.
one + one = ?
please show your work.
April 09, 2010 3:31 PM
Extell told to release 41 buyers from condos New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says Extell Development must let the buyers out of their contracts for the Rushmore condominium.
By Theresa Agovino
Extell Development must release 41 buyers from their contracts to buy apartments at the pricey Rushmore condominium because it failed to meet the projected closing date in the offering plan, according to a ruling from New York's attorney general, sources say. The offering plan said it would offer refunds if the project was delayed.
The decision means Extell will be forced to return about $14.5 million in down payments and will lose around $105 million in apartment sales, one source says. However, Extell could appeal the decision.
At least 41 buyers filed complaints with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office because their contracts said apartment closings would start in September 2008 but Extell missed the date. At least one person filed a lawsuit to have a deposit returned, but it was unclear if that person is included in the 41 letters that are being sent out.
Extell President Gary Barnett said in an interview with Crain's earlier this month that the date was just a typo and buyers were using it as an excuse to back out of their deals. He maintained that buyers only wanted out of their contracts because of the downturn in the residential and financial markets.
The ruling means the apartments will likely be resold for far less than they fetched in 2007 when the original contracts closed. It could also be a major disappointment to brokers who sold the apartments as they may lose out on commissions.
Mr. Barnett and the attorney general's spokesperson were not immediately available for comment.
Good news for the buyers who wanted out. Hopefully nobody closed against their wishes. Extell and Rushmore will survive this. I would not be surprised if some of the 41 use this as a negotiating tactic for a reduction to the 20% others were offered.
Does anyone know about subleasing policies in this building? I'm looking at subleasing a unit and want to check on the legitimacy of the deal.
It is not uncommon for Condos to forbid leases for under one year. Nobody wants their home turned into a Short stay hotel.
Is Abigail Michaels, Kidville & La Palestra still in the building?