Independence Plaza North - J51/RS

Arghh, too many "thats" - I don't think this is as clear-cut as the Stuy/PCV case. Any RE experts care to weigh in?

not a real estate expert, but i did work at two firms in the city that did highest level real estate law, and did some real estate work. like other corporate work it requires tremendous amounts of due diligence. i also did blue sky and legal investment surveys for munis. both areas seemed kind of the same to me in terms of quality of work. perceived relatively low risk, not the best quality of work.

i don't know the details of the mitchell-lama program. but if you take this reporting at face value, j-51 benefits seemed to be available to landlords under that program.

my take away from this? the nyc housing regulatory agencies are completely inept.

not a real estate expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Agree, HPD is inept. The issue seems even more convoluted than PCV/Stuy. The tenants had already negotiated with the LL upon leaving Mitchell-Lama, are they really allowed another bite at the apple because they didn't know of the J-51 argument?

Also, the agency allowed the LL to pay back the J-51 retroactive to leaving the ML program. So doesn't that have an effect on the outcome?

Very interesting. I have some personal RE tax issues of my own that I'm working on...

modern, why would you subject yourself to that? and i'm pretty sure you or someone else used that exact same joke a few months ago. stale.

10023, i don't know that i buy the argument that because a governmental agency allows a ll to expunge its liabilities that that negates legal responsibility.

I don't know that it does, but it's another factual difference from the Stuy/PCV case that may or may not make a difference.

It's not 100% clear. Based on the Stuy decision, all the IPN apts became RS upon receipt of J51 and not subject to luxury decontrol. If the LL stopped receiving J51 for any reason, then the apts still stay RS. Then, in 1998, these ML apts were not only in ML, but also RS. However in '04 (?) both tenant & LL (absent smoking memo) negotiated leaving ML (with state subsidies) in ignorance that the apts could leave ML but not RS - can the tenants come back now and get RS status back? Also, I don't know what effect ML had on the rents - is it an additional discount? So assuming that the tenants get RS status, how is the rent calculated? The other thing I'm not sure has been addressed is who has the right to assert/determine RS status? Surely it's the state and/or tenants. If the LL argues that the tenants forfeited their RS rights, is it possible that they can't forfeit those rights because they are not theirs to forfeit?

Factual correction/clarification: IPN has NEVER been rent stabilized, but should have been (because of J-51). This RS status should have been in place at time of exit from M-L. But because neither the former nor current owners informed the tenants of J-51 and RS status (which is against the law) and the oversight agency (HPD) never enforced the law, RS rights were never conferred. Had the RS status been in place, the current owner may have been less interested in buying the property in the first place, and it's not clear he would have opted to exit M-L, since RS would have blocked deregulation. (I am a 19-yr. resident of IPN.)

In case anyone is in doubt about the moral character of Laurence Gluck, IPN's owner (did you read about Riverton this week?), check this out: http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_354/fedsaygluck.html. Gluck is now being investigated by the feds for abusing HUD's section 8 program. And it's only gonna get worse for Mr. Gluck...

A state Supreme Court judge has ruled for the tenants, and against Gluck. In other words, IPN is rent stabilized: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100830/REAL_ESTATE/100839980#