Test

Pass

NWT - I am undoubtedly not alone is being delighted to see you ungreyed. On another thread, I alluded to some owners in our SF building who have circulated a draft complaint based on the "Jennifer Realty" theory. I have no issue with our SF building because I knew exactly what I was buying and expected the common charges to increase significantly in the years after the building came online for a number of reasons. I also believe the developer really intended to sell all of the units but could not when 2008 market events brought the real estate world to a stand still, but either way, the developer put prospective owners fully on notice that there was a chance they may never gain control of the building if the developer did not sell all the units. In the draft complaint that is being circulated there are allegations that the developer's salesperson made verbal representations; whether that occurred with other owners is beyond my personal knowledge, but it did not occur in my case. I don't know if you are as well versed in national real estate matters as you are in NYC real estate, but if you are, I am wondering if you have seen a wave of these "Jennifer Realty" theory complaints in recent years?

Hi NWT!! Welcome back in the black.

So, apologies for the off-topic question, and I certainly would not fault NWT for not responding, but I am being annoyed by a highly litigious individual (reader be the judge if s/he is as litigious as SWNCNBM). I will start a new thread on this topic if/when the circulated draft complaint is filed, but I myself might then be grey if/when that event comes to pass. I am not backing down from the threats of the highly litigious individual, but I would not blame SE/Zillow if they did; I was once GC of an online publicly traded company whose discussion forum was not mission critical, so I pass no judgment on said entity if they decided to grey me. All I will say, is that I am quite happy for the community that NWT is back in black. He is far more valuable to the community (vast understatement) than I, and I am capable of researching the Jennifer Realty question on my own.

This is a test thread. Please stay on topic.

Fab five Freddy told me everybody's fly. Nwt: do you know anything about that? How about the latest location of the west side coyote? The Roadrunner might know but I am conducting a social experiment here so why ask the roadrunner, when I can ask you?

Fieldschester: does she love you, or does she love you not? Are you "hbgbfc" and if the theory (whatever that is) that you are all -- she loves you, even though she doesn't? It's weirdly manipulative .

What, trUth, do your comments have to do with New York residential real estate? For that and that alone is the purpose of this discussion board. You alone seem to have trouble grasping that.

And there's "alanhart ", rejoicing in his se freedom to continue his obsession with "truth".

This thread is not about New York residential real estate. It is about Common Core.

Gothamsboro: that's the point. She misses the abusive trolls and "alanhart" is still obsessed about "truth". She's in bad company and she isn't a "novice " of any sort. (But she has stamps, so she's a novice to modern-day delivery methods.)

omg trouche is still posting with the same hysteria as ever! see ya next year!

The point was that companies need to decide how to deal with frivolous litigation; while I was dismayed to see the thread that I believe put NWT in the penalty box removed, I can understand a company's decision to enter into a non-monetary nuisance settlement (if that is what actually happened - this is pure speculation on my part) to dispose of frivolous litigation that has nothing to do with the company's core mission. Everybody needs to pick their battles and spend their resources in the manner they deem most appropriate. While my sincere hope is that the thread over which I am being threatened does not disappear, it is the website's choice to do what it deems is in its best interest. Either way, I am delighted that the website appears to have determined that it is in its best interest to have NWT back in black.

I think you're right as to what happened with She Whose Name Cannot Be Mentioned. (I didn't ask and they didn't tell me.)

Meanwhile SWNCBM is suing her former lawyer. Recent history here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=C2v3/h80PuIRAYA_PLUS_Nsc8oQ==&system=prod

Don't forget to welcome "yikes" back to " the streeteasy community ". Nwt was a good source of advice even when he was in the gray. No difference now or before, he remains the same his comments are always viewed . Add "yikes " to the list of abusive trolls still obsessed with "truth " and still posting abusive comments about her. Lucky you, to have another troll to add to your list of Se supporters.

This is good news! Welcome back.

My husband just got to this thread and tipped his hat to NWT, as we all have in the past.

1. Jennifer Realty, 98 NY2d 144 at 152-153 (2002), held that Coop Sponsors have implied

in law duty to sell Sponsor apts when doing so is necessary for a Coo's well-being

2. it can be applied or extended to seek specific enforcement of Offering Plan promises

3. but under NY law only the Attorney General can sue a Sponsor for securities law
disclosure fraud, altho the First Department has created a possible end-around
of that disability in Horn v . 440 East 57 ... 547 NYS2d 1, 4

1. Jennifer Realty, 98 NY2d 144 at 152-153 (2002), held that Coop Sponsors have implied

in law duty to sell Sponsor apts when doing so is necessary for a Coo's well-being

2. it can be applied or extended to seek specific enforcement of Offering Plan promises

3. but under NY law only the Attorney General can sue a Sponsor for securities law
disclosure fraud, altho the First Department has created a possible end-around
of that disability in Horn v . 440 East 57 ... 547 NYS2d 1, 4

I bought one of those Jennifer Convertibles once for when I have guests in my mother's basement, is that applicable?

hmmm ... http://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/39676-attorneys-contentious-boards-and-problem-sublets

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l3EiNf6dOxUJ:streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/39676-attorneys-contentious-boards-and-problem-sublets

Just to be clear, this thread is not at issue, and the highly litigious individual is not after any SE poster other than me. Regardless, as HWNCNBM knows, no SE poster has wronged him.

BTW - That Google cache thing is cool; when you click on the link, you get an early version of the discussion, and then when you click on the "current page" link in the upper right corner, you get complete version of the discussion. I hope you have been watching "Silicon Valley" - such a great show; feeling a void since Sunday's finale.

can someone summarize what happened? i missed all this but am intrigued sifting through google cache. also, YES to silicon valley!!!

QR - I rented an apartment in 2011 in a physically very beautiful building. I had an unfortunate experience. I published the details of that experience on Streeteasy. I have been threatened with litigation over my statements. You can locate the thread at issue by doing the following search on google: "streeteasy talk nycnovice renter beware."

P.S. - My story is tedious and boring, and I would like it to just go away, but if I agree to retract the posts, that would be giving in to tyranny. NWT's story is much more interesting, and I don't know all the ins and outs, but I speculate that the litigious individual there may have threatened NWT, Streeteasy and a number of other SE posters. Re FC's cached thread, no idea what that is about, but if you search SE discussions for other comments made by OP of that cached thread, you may learn more. I caution you about getting too distracted by random threads on SE; it is a slippery slope; once you start reading, you might get sucked in and become a Streeteasy Discussion addict like myself and many others on here.

There was a story in the Post about a woman being sued by her condo because she was renting it out AirBnB-style. Somebody posted a link to the story. I and several others commented on the case, and I followed up with links to public court documents.

The woman countersued the condo and its board members, saying they were picking on her because they were of Polish and she of Russian background. (Go figure....)

She also sued the Post for using her LinkedIn or Facebook photo, saying it was copyrighted.

After the condo won its case, and won again on appeal, she sued Zillow. I don't know what for, as that was in Queens and there was no complaint filed.

At the same time, we posters got vaguely-threatening e-mails from her boyfriend, and got lawyer letters from her attorney, and Zillow greyed us. Everybody rightly ignored the lame help-me-make-a-case-against-you lawyer letters, and we never heard anything else.

Later on, after her losses, she sued her lawyer for malpractice. Her claims in that case were picked up by the condo's lawyers, because they indicate she lied to the court. The condo's lawyers get the closed condo case restored, apparently wanting sanctions against her and her lawyer.

That's the sequence as best I remember it. It was all quite a while ago. There's a handy summary at https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=C2v3/h80PuIRAYA_PLUS_Nsc8oQ==&system=prod

As always, many thanks to NWT for sharing. All I can say to that craziness is wow - I don't know who I dislike more: individuals who knowingly abuse the best legal system on the planet or the attorneys who represent such individuals. Fitting that the two appear to have turned on each other.

Stop whining already.
Oh sorry, yes everyone dislikes the same categories of people you dislike.

So, all threats having failed, HWNCNBM has approached me through an intermediary with what appears to be a plea for mercy. Hard to say what this latest overture is when it comes through an intermediary with lots of disclaimers and qualifiers. I just want HWNCNBM to go away, and the fact that he continues to be a nuisance years after the initial incident(s) is disturbing on a few levels. Even when I was living in the building, I would get past each questionable incident and just move on, but then get bitten again shortly thereafter. My initial reaction to the intermediary's overture was that it is hard to believe that my postings on Streeteasy are as powerful as the intermediary is claiming them to be, and why on earth would I take down a warning sign for a hazardous condition? That is where what appeared to be the plea for mercy came in, with the intermediary asking: "Is there nothing that can be done to have you ask Streeteasy to remove your own posts?" I have conveyed to the intermediary an offer of redemption, which includes a public apology to me and my husband, as well as a donation of wrongfully collected and retained monies to a tenants' rights group. I doubt HWNCNBM will take it, and I really do wonder how many tenants have had experiences similar to mine without the necessary legal training to minimize the costs. Not sure if anyone dug into the last/latest litigation, the one with the tenant who alleged his lease was internally inconsistent as to termination date, but to me, that complaint and its exhibits say it all.

If only HMNCMBN would realize - it isn't the critical statements from someone who invented numerous names (not all of which have been admitted) and cockamamie conflicting stories, but rather, the market's concern is all of the effusive brokers' over-flowery statements, especially when the $10K-$20K per month renter clicks through those brokers' profiles to see the incomparable quality of their regular listings.

I am not new2me!!!!

NYCNovice, what struck me when researching that guy is his seeming to have appeared from nowhere at 40 years old to do that previous and only-other condo. Most of the litigation predates e-filing, so no interesting deposition transcripts where a lawyer asks "Who are you?" The PACER docs of the bankruptcy case are restricted, so no fun there, either.

The e-mails in the decorator case were a hoot, but no clues there except as to taste.

Fieldschester, yes, those troops called in to the defense are as lame as the lawyer letters NYCNovice got.

I wouldn't say it was the business plan, but maybe BI figures the $20K renter will just bend over and squeal like a pig at the end of lease, i.e. just chalk up the lost security deposit as additional rent and walk away.

Then there's the question of WTF would buy a condo where the developer still owns (after 15 years) 25 of 63 units and is way too wrapped up in the building.

NWT - I actually sent a runner to the various courts a few years ago to get files from some of the litigations that may not be readily available to non-lawyers. I also have copies of some depositions that are not subject to any confidentiality or protective orders that I received by talking to attorneys who represented parties adverse to HWNCNBM. In the period between moving out of the building and having a portion of the security deposit bogusly (sp?) withheld, I actually had considered buying a one bedroom in the building that was listed for around $950 at the time. At that time I did not realize HWNCNBM was still in control of the entire building, and I thought that as a simple fellow owner I would not ever have to deal with him; and frankly, I thought that even if I did have to deal with him, it would be fine because I thought the boundaries had been professionally set, and I really tend to forget about annoyances shortly after dealing with them. I can only speculate, but I feel like BI's withholding the $3000 at the end was DH's parting shot to me because he had been forced to back down on some bigger issues, and he rightly knew that it would not be worth my or my husband's time to purse the monies at issue. I also think part of HWNCNBM's odd behavior might be aimed at my husband because my husband never allowed him to circumvent me. He would call my husband's office in NY; my husband's assistant would relay the message to my husband, who would instruct his assistant to return the call with direction that HWNCNBM needed to speak with me because I am the one who handles everything related to our housing. I have a ton of information on the guy, and most recently when he made the most pathetic of attempts to get to my husband, it annoyed my husband enough that he asked for the file, and once he started getting into he, he joked that he wanted to started doing a "Serial" pastiche on Streeteasy about the guy. In any event, once I started digging into the litigations a few years ago and talking to people, it all became clear. I believe there is some sort of personality disorder at play; I had been warned early on by one of the staff members that HWNCNBM really does not like to be challenged on anything and fancies himself the mayor of both buildings he developed, though tyrannical dictator would be more appropriate. Look at the hit that Lagasse Land LLC took on its unit and see if you can figure out who is behind the LLC; apparently that individual sold at an even greater loss than is noted because of the crazy renovation that he did to the unit that would make sense only for someone in his field. Apparently there was at least one public shouting match. In any event, we were lucky to get out down a few thousand dollars, whereas others appear to have elected to lump losses hundreds of thousands rather than stay in the building. In any event, the more I learned, the more I felt a duty to warn. I feel I have put enough information out there to at least put people on notice to dig a little deeper. To dig as deep as I dug requires being an attorney or hiring one, which prospective purchasers will do, but again, prospective renters might be a bit more cavalier. With all that said, if you bow down to the dictator and don't mind paying a certain percentage in excess of what you agreed to pay as tribute to his appointed status as emperor of the building, you could probably have a generally lovely experience in the building, with the exception of heating and AC issues, which, hopefully for residents of the building, have been fixed, much in the same way I am sure there are friends of Putin who enjoy Russia immensely. The building itself is really lovely as are the physical spaces of the units, and the staff is also generally very good. I actually felt badly for HWNCNBM's longtime crony who was caught in the middle of more than one of my back and forths with HWNCNBM. HWNCNBM is incredibly wily, and you really have to study the litigations to see some very disturbing patterns, which include allegations that will supposedly be supported by the testimony of named individuals who never end up submitting sworn affidavits, but as an adversary, you have to pay for litigation through the summary judgment phase to get to that point. The litigation with the former business partner (federal case, citation for which I did not put in the recommended reading list) is a fascinating story in and of itself. Pyrrhic victory to say the least. The fact that this man, about whom I forgot long ago, is making very concerted efforts to try to get tome today, combined with my belief that there is some sort of personality disorder at play, scares me a bit. If anything happens to me, please inform any investigating authorities accordingly.

P.S. - My research revealed that only one former employee of HWNCNBM has gone on record publicly that she was fired for refusing to lie for him (Lori Levine), but I did catch one employee in a lie, and . . . well, you get the general idea.

I'd slipped up and searched federal for only DH and not BI, and just now saw the Levine case with no documents.

Anyway, thanks for the additional detail. The high litigation-to-project ratio, alone, says a lot. That and the frequent attorney changes, but I'm probably reading too much into those.

PPS - As a final note, one might conclude after reading all the publicly available information and my postings that HWNCNBM is a lovely savvy businessman and that I am a lying nutjob; I was aware of this risk and willingly assume it. So there you have it.

Not at all. Where'd we be if no one took the risk?

The high litigation-to-project ratio, alone, says a lot. That and the frequent attorney changes.

I always believe that over the long-term, people who have lawyers who are representative of who they are. Of course, not for one-off cases and incidents, people in short-term problems, etc. But someone involved in business deals, litigation, and even criminal matters on a long-term basis who changes lawyers frequently, those people, actually I find them fun.
I wish inoitall and Ottawahwaaahnyc were here to tell us about their legal expertise and give us their legal advice based on one small claims incident transferred to arbitration with Judge Mathis.

I always believe that over the long-term, people have lawyers who are representative of who they are.

@FC - I know you are not one to share generally, but I would be interested in your elaborating on your last post. I am guessing that you have had some experience with litigation, and how it often does not even end once there is a settlement agreement; nothing more frustrating than having a second round to enforce the settlement agreement from the first round.

What do you mean I don't share? I've been here just about 2 years and have posted at a rate of 200 times per month based on the listed post count.

Okay, more the to the point: Have you ever been involved in litigation with an adversary who changed attorneys more than once, finally ending up just representing himself? If so, I am sorry that your craziness does not appear to be entirely over with the most recent appeal of the award in your favor, but it looks like you are doing quite well in the battle and are nearing the end. Your adversary appears to be a real piece of work.

You asked a very very specific question. The answer to your question is "No".

Fine, Bill Clinton. I see he has yet another new attorney. Litigation aside, that situation looks like it has all the makings of a blood feud, and I don't envy anybody that. I hope everything works out okay. Re my situation, it is not personal, at least not on my side; never was. It looks like your situation may not be personal on your side either, but it looks like it might be for the other side. I am sorry for that for all parties involved; always heartbreaking to watch.

My situation??

Fine - "that" situation, but there has to be something personal there that is not apparent to the naked eye. Or perhaps I just watched too many episodes of Breaking Bad (if you didn't ever watch the show, Walt - the tragic protagonist of the series - was originally part of a company that he founded with his two best friends).

The novice posts here not for you but for her nemesis to read. If she had just let it go after posting under multiple names she could have forgotten about all of this. Instead when livelovelaugh posted here about happy experience living in that building the novice could not foget about it. She continued to post her negative comments about that building and now she's involved in the situation that she caused for herself. If livelovelaugh had posted a comment asking for info on that building any post following would be informative. This whole situation and the novice being unwilling to effect a change in the building where she claimed to have problems yet did not move out upon that initial experience plus her unwillingness to drop her crusade on streeteasy are the reasons she is still here. Endless updates on her nemesis and all of the rest

The novice could have and should have forgotten it long ago. Instead it is evident that this is personal for her. She strokes net who should know better.

Correction nwt. She strokes nwt.

What kind of person would post under multiple names? It's simply inconceivable.

Yes, I guess my situation is personal to the extent that I hate bullies. As I explained in the thread at issue, there is no adequate remedy at law for damages caused by a bullying landlord. I seriously doubt that HWNCNBM reads Streeteasy Discussions, but if he does, that is okay; I never say anything on here that I would not say directly to somebody in person. I knew when I posted that there was a real chance that he would threaten to sue and might even actually sue, but sometimes you have to take a stand. Had there just been one irregularity, I would have let it go, but there were too many to ignore.

Inconceivable!

Why was NYCNovice deleted?

I answered your question on another thread before I got to this one.

Well, 3 of you is still better than none.