Victory for Tenants as Harassment Bill Passes

By Bennett Baumer February 28, 2008 Posted in IndyBlog Email this article
Yesterday the New York City Council unanimously passed Intro 627-A, a bill that gives tenants the right to sue landlords for harassment. The bill was cosponsored by Speaker Christine Quinn among 34 other council members. The harassment bill is a big victory for tenants under the gun to move out of affordable rent-regulated apartments that landlords could charge exorbitant rates.
The landlord lobby – the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and Rent Stabilization Association had waged a concentrated campaign against the bill. The landlord lobby’s central line of attack was to argue that Intro 627-A would clog the courts with tenant initiated frivolous lawsuits. In opposing the pro-tenant legislation, real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey commented that Intro 627-A would cause “thousands of lawsuits, millions of dollars in legal fees.”
Harassment Bill Says: March 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Proposed Int. No. 627-A
By Council Members Garodnick, Mark-Viverito, The Speaker (Council Member Quinn), James, Comrie, Mendez, Jackson, Lappin, Gerson, Palma, Liu, Brewer, Yassky, Dickens, Recchia Jr., Gioia, DeBlasio, Eugene, Addabbo Jr., Gentile, Gonzalez, Koppell, Monserrate, Sanders Jr., Sears, Stewart, Martinez, Arroyo, Foster, Vann, Baez, Mealy, Avella, Barron, White Jr., Gennaro and The Public Advocate (Ms. Gotbaum).
A Local Law
To amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to the duty of an owner to refrain from harassment of tenants and remedies for the breach of such duty.
Be it enacted by the Council as follows:Section 1. Subdivision a of section 27-2004 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new paragraph 48 to read as follows:48. Except where otherwise provided, the term “harassment” shall mean any act or omission by or on behalf of an owner that (i) causes or is intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy, and (ii) includes one or more of the following:a. using force against, or making express or implied threats that force will be used against, any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit;b. repeated interruptions or discontinuances of essential services, or an interruption or discontinuance of an essential service for an extended duration or of such significance as to substantially impair the habitability of such dwelling unit;c. failing to comply with the provisions of subdivision c of section 27-2140 of this chapter;d. commencing repeated baseless or frivolous court proceedings against any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit;e. removing the possessions of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit;f. removing the door at the entrance to an occupied dwelling unit; removing, plugging or otherwise rendering the lock on such entrance door inoperable; or changing the lock on such entrance door without supplying a key to the new lock to the persons lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit; org. other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.§2. Section 27-2005 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision d to read as follows:d. The owner of a dwelling shall not harass any tenants or persons lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling as set forth in paragraph 48 of subdivision a of section 27-2004 of this chapter.§3. Subdivision h of section 27-2115 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by numbering the existing section as paragraph 1 and by adding a new paragraph 2 to read as follows:(h)(1) Should the department fail to issue a notice of violation upon the request of a tenant or group of tenants within thirty days of the date of such request, or if there is a notice of violation outstanding respecting the premises in which the tenant or group of tenants resides, or, if there is a claim of harassment pursuant to subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter, the tenant or any group of tenants, may individually or jointly apply to the housing part for an order directing the owner and the department to appear before the court. Such order shall be issued at the discretion of the court for good cause shown, and shall be served as the court may direct. If the court finds a condition constituting a violation exists, it shall direct the owner to correct the violation and, upon failure to do so within the time set for certifying the correction of such violation pursuant to subdivision (c) of this section, it shall impose a penalty in accordance with subdivision (a) of this section. Nothing in this section shall preclude any person from seeking relief pursuant to any other applicable provision of law.(2) (i) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph one of this subdivision, where one or more allegations of harassment pursuant to subparagraphs b, c and g of paragraph 48 of subdivision a of section 27-2004 of this chapter is made, to the extent that any such allegation is based on physical conditions of a dwelling or dwelling unit, such allegation must be based at least in part on one or more violations of record issued by the department or any other agency. Where any allegation of harassment is based on more than one physical condition, the existence of at least one violation of record with respect to any such physical condition shall be deemed sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph.(ii) The provisions of subparagraph i of this paragraph shall apply to any counterclaim or defense presented by a tenant in any proceeding in the housing part of the civil court if such counterclaim or defense is based on one or more allegations of harassment. In the event there is no violation of record with respect to at least one physical condition alleged by such tenant such counterclaim or defense shall be dismissed without prejudice.§4. Section 27-2115 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding new subdivisions m and n to read as follows:(m) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this code shall be a class c immediately hazardous violation and a penalty shall be imposed in accordance with this section, provided, however, that such violation shall not be deemed a continuing class c violation of record beyond the time that the conduct constituting such violation occurred.(2) If a court of competent jurisdiction finds that conduct in violation of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter has occurred, it may determine that a class c violation existed at the time that such conduct occurred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, such court may also issue an order restraining the owner of the property from violating such subdivision and direct the owner to ensure that no further violation occurs, in accordance with section 27-2121 of this chapter. Such court shall impose a civil penalty in an amount not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each dwelling unit in which a tenant or any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such unit has been the subject of such violation, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. It shall be an affirmative defense to an allegation by a tenant of the kind described in subparagraphs b, c and g of paragraph forty-eight of subdivision a of section 27-2004 of this chapter that (i) such condition or service interruption was not intended to cause any lawful occupant to vacate a dwelling unit or waive or surrender any rights in relation to such occupancy, and (ii) the owner acted in good faith in a reasonable manner to promptly correct such condition or service interruption, including providing notice to all affected lawful occupants of such efforts, where appropriate.(3) An owner may seek an order by the court enjoining a tenant from initiating any further judicial proceedings against such owner pursuant to this section claiming harassment without prior leave of the court if (i) within a ten-year period such tenant has initiated two judicial proceedings pursuant to this section against such owner claiming harassment that have been dismissed on the merits and (ii) a third or subsequent proceeding initiated by such tenant against such owner pursuant to this section claiming harassment during such ten-year period is determined at the time of its adjudication to be frivolous. Except for an order on consent such order may be sought by such owner simultaneously with the adjudication of such third or subsequent judicial proceeding.(4) Where the court determines that a claim of harassment by a tenant against an owner is so lacking in merit as to be frivolous, the court may award attorneys fees to such owner in an amount to be determined by the court.(5) Nothing in paragraphs three or four of this subdivision shall be construed to affect or limit any other claims or rights of the parties.n. The provisions of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter, subdivision m of this section and subdivision b of section 27-2120 of this chapter shall not apply where a shareholder of record on a proprietary lease for a dwelling unit, the owner of record of a dwelling unit owned as a condominium, or those lawfully entitled to reside with such shareholder or record owner, resides in the dwelling unit for which the proprietary lease authorizes residency or in such condominium unit, as is applicable, or to private dwellings.§5. Section 27-2120 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by renumbering the first paragraph as subdivision a, and adding a new subdivision b to read as follows:a. The department may institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for an order requiring the owner of property or other responsible person to abate or correct any violation of this code, or to comply with an order or notice of the department, or for such other relief as may be appropriate to secure continuing compliance with this code. An action for injunctive relief hereunder may be brought in addition to other sanctions and remedies for violations of the code, or may be joined with any action for such other sanctions and remedies except criminal prosecution.b. Any tenant, or person or group of persons lawfully entitled to occupancy may individually or jointly apply to the housing part of the civil court for an order restraining the owner of the property from engaging in harassment. Except for an order on consent, such order may be granted upon or subsequent to a determination that a violation of subdivision d of section 27-2005 of this chapter has occurred.§6. If any sentence, paragraph, section or part of this local law shall be adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction such judgment shall not impair or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined to that part deemed invalid.§7. This local law shall take effect immediately.

PRESERVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COUNCIL VOTES TO PROTECT LOW-INCOME RENTERS FROM DISCRIMINATION
January 30, 2007 – At today’s Stated Council meeting, the members of the New York City Council will vote on legislation to ensure full opportunity for New Yorkers with limited incomes to obtain affordable housing by prohibiting discrimination against tenants based on lawful source of rent payment. This legislation will help maximize the use of available Section 8 vouchers and help low-income families access safe and permanent housing.

PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME.

The Council will vote to prohibit discrimination against prospective tenants based on lawful source of income, protecting New Yorkers from housing discrimination and helping those with limited incomes find and maintain affordable housing by maximizing the use of Section 8 vouchers or other forms of governmental rent payment in the City. This vote comes after nearly a year of working with the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), landlord and tenant advocacy groups to improve the administration of the Section 8 voucher programs.
“With the rising cost of housing, it’s critical that we take every possible step to preserve and increase access to affordable housing, and this legislation continues the Council’s efforts to do just that,” said Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn. “This legislation, thanks to the hard work of the Council, ACORN and other housing groups, will not only increase access for people eligible for Section 8 vouchers to affordable housing, it will fully protect an individual’s right to housing, regardless of their financial circumstances.”
“As difficult as it is to find affordable housing in New York City, it is significantly harder to find an apartment with a Section 8 voucher,” said General Welfare Committee Chair Bill de Blasio. “This legislation will help maximize available Section 8 vouchers and help low-income families access the housing they are eligible for and desperately need.”
Understanding that small landlords may have difficulty with the administrative burden that can come with the Section 8 program, the legislation exempts landlords who own five or fewer units. However, rent controlled tenants who reside in these small properties would come under the protection of the law. The law applies to all housing accommodations, regardless of the number of units in each, of anyone who owns at least at least one property of six or more units.
A study released by ACORN NY in April of 2007 revealed that of 122 available studios and one bedroom apartments within section 8 limits listed on Craigslist, The Daily News or The New York Times classifieds, only 16 of the owners surveyed would accept Section 8 vouchers. In January of 2007, Mayor Bloomberg announced that 22,000 new Section 8 vouchers would be made available in New York City by the federal government, greatly increasing the number of low-income residents who can afford an apartment. This protective legislation will help maximize the use of available Section 8 vouchers and help low-income families access the housing for which they are eligible.

Embattled Landlord Pinnacle Selling 22 Manhattan Buildings | The New York Observer

Embattled Landlord Pinnacle Selling 22 Manhattan Buildings The New York Observer

Council Proposes Crackdown on Abusive Landlords

Columbia Spectator
By Melissa Repko
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 19, 2007
City Council members aim to crack down on tenant harassment with a bill they introduced in front of over 100 supporters on Wednesday.
The proposed legislation, spearheaded by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, would make tenant harassment a class C violation of the Housing Maintenance Code. Violators would pay from $1000 to $5000 for each offense.
“For too long, tenants have been powerless against landlords who seek to pursue them illegally through threats or interruption of basic services and increasingly through frivolous court proceedings,” said Councilmember Dan Garodnick, D-Manhattan. “This bill gives tenants a fair chance to fight back.”
Locally, allegations against landlords of tenants harassment have been widespread. Tenants in buildings owned by the Pinnacle Group in West Harlem and elsewhere, along with the advocacy group Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem, have filed a federal lawsuit against Pinnacle, saying that the landlord has mounted a concerted campaign of harassment aimed at getting tenants out of their rent-regulated apartment so they can be “flipped” to market rate.
While Quinn stressed the positive aspects of growth and development, she warned against taking extreme measures to evict tenants. “We need to recognize that with development often comes gentrification pressures,” she said. “There are bad apples out there who are responding to that gentrification by deliberately and willingly engaging in campaigns of tenant harassment.”
“There is no compassion in the tactics that are being implicated,” said Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito, D-Manhattan Valley and East Harlem, adding that many tenants being targeted are elderly. “We are here to say that greed will not trump dignity.”
Rachael Klausner, a 96-year-old resident of 200 East 26th St., voiced fears of landlord harassment in her home of 64 years. Ever since there was a fire in the building on April 16, one third of the building’s tenants—most of whom are elderly—have been homeless and there have been no repairs to the site.
“These are the people who are being harassed out of their homes,” said Christine LaFroscia, another resident of the building and the president of its tenant’s association. “Only by changing the system will we be able to put our heads to our pillows at night knowing that people like Rachael and others like her are not going to be evicted from their homes.”
Quinn responded to concerns that landlords would be inundated with frivolous lawsuits, pointing to the bill’s safeguards. The bill spells out the offenses that are considered harassment, which include cutting off services like water and heat, deliberately failing to make repairs, and falsely claiming that tenants have failed to pay rent. Tenants who file three lawsuits that are deemed baseless are not allowed automatic standing to file a fourth.
With Quinn’s backing and widespread support within the council, the proposal looks likely to pass. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has not taken a public position on the bill.

Suit Against Landlord Could Turn Class Action

September 16, 2007

Thousands of tenants may join a lawsuit against a prominent Manhattan landlord. In July, the tenant group BRUSH filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against the Pinnacle Group and owner Joel Wiener. The suit claims Pinnacle made shoddy repairs to apartments, violated rent stabilization laws, issued illegal evictions, and harassed tenants to try an force them out and raise rents. Now, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum says a petition for an upgrade to the lawsuit has been filed. It would add every Pinnacle tenant to the lawsuit, about 21,000 people. In July, a spokesman denied trying to force tenants out of their homes and said the group is committed to preserving affordable housing.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=73653&search_result=1&stid=8

LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST THE PINNACLE GROUP AND CEO JOEL WIENER

BUYERS AND RENTERS UNITED TO SAVE HARLEM, INC. (BRUSH)
FILES A RICO LAWSUIT AGAINST REAL ESTATE GIANT, PINNACLE GROUP, AND CEO, JOEL WIENER.

NEW YORK, NY -- Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem, Inc. (BRUSH), and the law firm of Jenner & Block, LLP, has filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against one of New York’s biggest residential landlords, The Pinnacle Group, and its CEO, Joel Wiener.

The lawsuit, filed with the full support of NY Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, accuses Pinnacle and Wiener, who together own over 21,000 apartments in New York City of engaging in wanton and widespread violations of New York rent laws as well as the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) statutes.

In the lawsuit, BRUSH contends Pinnacle engaged in:

“… reckless and intentional systematic acts and business practices of demanding and collecting rents in amounts beyond those permitted under the law …” and “… an overall pattern and practice of tenant harassment, which includes: … failing to timely make necessary and reasonable repairs, to address housing maintenance code violations, or to provide essential, required services and then threatening and taking action to evict tenants who have reasonably and legally withheld rent because of such illegal conduct; (iii) commencing unfounded eviction actions to demand rent that already has been paid; (iv) commencing unfounded proceedings to challenge tenants' succession rights and harassing and intimidating tenants by demanding an unduly burdensome, unjustified, and unwarranted amount of evidence regarding a tenant’s succession rights; (v) unjustifiably refusing to accept tenants’ rent checks and then claiming non-payment of rent and commencing eviction actions or other proceedings challenging succession rights; (vi) directing, encouraging and allowing the superintendents of its buildings to, among other things, harass tenants by making unacceptable and shoddy repairs or making false promises to conduct repairs; scheduling appointments that the superintendents do not attend; issuing false notices and documents regarding tenants’ activities or conduct; and ignoring tenants’ complaints and acting in a hostile and retaliatory manner to tenants who have made complaints; (vii) failing to offer tenants lease renewals, or lease renewals on proper terms; (viii) failing to comply with orders issued by the New York Department of Housing and Community Renewal requiring Pinnacle to pay monetary awards to tenants for rent overcharges and rent reductions; (ix) seeking to restore original rents that have been reduced in accordance with Department of Housing and Community Renewal orders, knowing that the housing violations giving rise to the rent reductions have not been resolved; and (x) refusing to respond to and ignoring tenants’ inquiries and requests for documents relating to rental histories, rent increases based on individual apartment improvements and major capital improvements, and lease renewals.”
Kim Powell, President of BRUSH said: “The Pinnacle Group is a parasite in the community, profiting unfairly and illegally from harassment and loopholes in the rent laws without giving anything back to the community. They have acquired thousands of affordable, rent-controlled and rent-stabilized units in New York City, and have systematically victimized tenants by illegally inflating rents while at the same time reducing the quality of repairs and services. What’s Pinnacle’s goal? To push out long-term tenants, drive up rents until apartments are deregulated, and shove through condo conversions that replace affordable rentals with million dollar condos. This landlord has made a mockery of the NYC Housing Court, abused and crippled NYS and NYC housing agencies by its egregious conduct. We hope that this lawsuit sends a clear message to the Pinnacle Group and other landlords that the community will not tolerable abusive and illegal conduct.”
BRUSH is a non-profit association founded to promote tenants’ rights and preserve affordable and quality housing in the West Harlem and Northern Manhattan communities. BRUSH does outreach in the community and hosts seminars and workshops to raise awareness of tenants’ rights. BRUSH has played a key role in organizing tenant associations and works with various state and local agencies and officials in an effort to combat displacement of tenants by the forces of gentrification.

-- END --
If you have a story to tell then we want to know. Contact us!

Death Notice

It is with profound sadness we announce the death of one of our BRUSH Board members, Ms. Debbie (Maudline) Brown. Ms. Brown served on the Board since the organization's inception, and up until her death.

As a Board member and resident of the Harlem community she was very active, vocal, and responsive to the needs of the community. A "tower of strengh" and a woman dedicated to the cause of the community. She will be missed. Our Condolences to her family, and friends.

Tenants Nominate Pinnacle Group as NYC's Most Abusive Landlord Twice

Pinnacle Unpopular Despite Gift
Tenants Nominate Group Twice as 'New York City's Most Abusive Landlord'
By Kevin Shin
Issue date: 1/25/07 Section: News

The Pinnacle Group, one of the city's largest owners of rent-regulated apartments, has fallen out of favor with residents and seems to be trying to buy its way back into their hearts.On Tuesday, before a city-wide tenants' convention of over 500 tenants, Pinnacle garnered two nominations out of a total of 12 for "New York City's Most Abusive Landlord." Tenants' delegations from Harlem and Washington Heights/Inwood, areas in which Pinnacle owns the majority of its rent-regulated apartments, submitted the nominations.These nominations came on the heels of Pinnacle's announcement that it would give a $500,000 grant toward the founding of the Harlem Senior Tenants and Landlords Reconciliation Center. The center, which will be administered by the Harlem Consumer Education Council, aims to educate Harlem's elderly tenants, property managers, and landlords about their rights and obligations."This worthy initiative will offer tenants, and particularly seniors, a vehicle to address any concerns in an open, timely, and cost-effective manner," said Joel Wiener, CEO of the Pinnacle Group, in a press release earlier this month. "The Pinnacle Group believes in setting the standard for housing in New York City and listening to the communities we serve."The initiative comes at a turbulent period of strife between Pinnacle and many tenants renting its properties."In a two-year period, Pinnacle has not only bought close to $1 billion worth of buildings in substandard conditions, but since 2004, it has started eviction proceedings for a quarter of its tenants," said Anne Ingersoll, president of the Community Union of Washington Heights and Inwood, and spokesperson for Washington Heights/Inwood at the nomination convention.Ingersoll and her delegation chose to nominate Pinnacle for as the city's most abusive out of the over 100 landlords her union oversees."They are much more aggressive than most other landlords," said Ingersoll of Pinnacle. "They send inspectors to private homes asking for personal information, file eviction proceedings on false grounds, and serve unwanted tenants with complex legal documents."
These tactics, said Ingersoll, are meant to intimidate and push out lower-income tenants, many of whom are immigrants who are elderly or have limited command of English.Once tenants either move out or are evicted by the court, landlords are legally allowed to raise rent. Because the law allows landlords to successively raise the rent each time a tenant moves out, residents claim the law has created incentives for landlords to pursue transient tenants, such as students, who may only rent for semesters at a time. Once rent reaches at least $2,000 per month, apartments are no longer classified as rent-stabilized and the landlord can charge market price.Harlem tenants at the convention echoed many of the same allegations against Pinnacle."Every time a person is taken to court, you lose one-twentieth of your working days per month," said Rafael Luna, a community activist who, after deliberating on eight other area landlords, nominated Pinnacle on behalf of Harlem tenants. "A lot of people that they take to court work two, three jobs. They can't afford to go to court. So they say, 'Screw this shit, let me take the $2,000 or whatever shitty amount Pinnacle pays me to leave, and just get out.'"Pinnacle hopes that their contribution to the Harlem Senior Tenants and Landlords Reconciliation Center will help smooth out such potential conflicts in the future."This model is unique and innovative because for the first time in Harlem's recent history, a program's primary focus will be to bring together senior tenants, landlords, and property managers to address issues all three groups face everyday," said HCEC founder Florence M. Rice, in a press release. "It will provide a forum where they can come together and work in a non-threatening environment to develop, not necessarily perfect, but workable solutions that each group can live with."

Stuy Town Tenants Sue over Rents

Stuy Town tenants sue over rents
The Associated Press

January 23, 2007, 10:06 AM EST

A group of tenants at Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village want to see their rents rolled back, saying the complex's owners illegally charged market-rate rents while benefitting from tax breaks that should have precluded them from doing so.The suit, filed Monday in Manhattan state Supreme Court, names both the previous owner of the complex, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and Tishman Speyer Properties, which bought it for a record $5.4 billion last year. Most of the more than 11,000 units in the property are under rent regulation, while about 3,000 are not. The class-action lawsuit asks that those 3,000 apartments be put back under rent regulation for another 10 years, until a series of city-given tax breaks expire. Those tax breaks are given in exchange for unit owners agreeing to keep rents reasonably low. Those filing the lawsuit say that means the owners shouldn't be charging market-level rent.The suit also asks for $320 million in damages, The New York Times reported in Tuesday's editions.A spokesman for Met Life declined to comment to the paper, while a spokesman for Tishman said the suit was without merit.

List of 12 of NYC's Landlords

• List of NYC's 12 'worst landlords'
  By Justin Rocket Silverman
  amNewYork Staff Writer
  
  January 24, 2007
  
  The 'Dirty Dozen' list provided by the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development:
• Mt. Eden, the Bronx: Jacob Finkelstein for not fixing leaks at 105 E. Clark Place
• Washington Heights: Joel Weiner of The Pinnacle Group LLC, which is said to have begun legal proceedings against 5,000 tenants
• Central Brooklyn: John Tsevelos of G-Way Management
• West Side Manhattan: Jay Podolsky for harassing tenants at SRO hotels-
• Lower East Side: Nathan Shuchat at 141 Ridge Street
• Williamsburg: Adam Mermelstein and TreeTop Development LLC
• Queens:George Subraj for his many buildings in the Jamacia area.
• Bushwick: David Melendez is said to have more than 673 open building code violations-
• Harlem: Joel Weiner of The Pinnacle Group LLC
• South Bronx: Doug Peterson of NYC Capital Value Fund II LLC for pressuring Section 8 tenants to move out
• Chinatown: Benjamin Shaoul for bringing frivolous lawsuits
• South Brooklyn: Julia and Carlos Guzman for harassing tenants at 268 Dean Street

Advocates Name the Worst Landlords in NYC

Advocates name city's 'worst landlords'
By Justin Rocket Silverman
amNewYork Staff Writer

January 24, 2007

Housing advocates Tuesday released a "dirty dozen" list of landlords, who they claim are harassing tenants to force them out of rent-stabilized apartments.In years past, the most notorious landlords were criticized for letting their buildings fall apart. But in this rapidly gentrifying modern city, owners are coming under fire for trying to clear their buildings of tenants to make way for luxury apartments. "We are hard-working families, paying our rent on time, and don't deserve to be harassed," said Jacqueline Hernandez, a resident of 188 South 3rd St. in Williamsburg. "The apartments we live in are full of mold and drafty windows. Meanwhile, we see nice new windows being installed in empty apartments."The owners of 188 South 3rd -- Adam Mermelstein and TreeTop Development LLC -- were voted "New York's Most Abusive Landlord" by the hundreds of people attending Tuesday's gathering of housing advocacy groups.Eleven other landlords from neighborhoods from the Bronx to Manhattan's Lower East Side were cited for what the participants said were strong-arm harassment tactics used in trying to clear tenants out.More than half the tenants of 188 South 3rd have already moved out, and their one-bedroom apartments are being renovated and combined into two- and three-bedroom units, the residents said.Reached by phone, Mermelstein said he was not making any effort to get the rent-stabilized tenants out. He said he had only bought the building four months ago, and that constant repairs were being made to all the apartments.TreeTop Development's website was advertising 188 South 3rd as a "gut-renovation upscale rental."Market-rate rent in the area could reach upwards of $2,000 a month for renovated units. Many of the current tenants are paying less than $700."Harassment of tenants has become one of the dominant business models in New York City," said Benjamin Dulchin, of the Association of Neighborhood and Housing Development, which sponsored Tuesday's event. "Landlords buy buildings where tenants are paying low rent, and then expect to be able to push out those tenants."Dulchin said the solution was a City Council bill that would criminalize the harassment of rent-stabilized tenants.One common harassment tactic, Dulchin said, is to bring a large number of frivolous lawsuits against tenants, who often can't afford a lawyer or speak English well enough to understand the accusations.

Convention to Select New York's Most Abusive Landlord

Are You Being HARASSED By Your Landlord?
Come to a
Convention to Select
New York’s
Most Abusive
Landlord
Tenants from neighborhoods across New York will nominate landlords who are using illegal methods to push tenants out, then vote to chose New York’s Most Abusive Landlord.
This event will bring attention to the crisis of harassment, and support new legislation in the City Council that will give tenants a new tool to fight back.
DATE: Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007
TIME: 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM
PLACE: Judson Memorial Church
55 Washington Square South
Manhattan
(between Thompson and Sullivan Street, three blocks from West 4t Street stop of A,B,C,D,E,F,V subway)








For More Information, contact: Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development, 212-747-1117, www.anhd.org

AG Settlement with Pinnacle Group for Rent Overcharges

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com/ News probe helps put hit on Pinnacle BY JUAN GONZALEZ DAILY NEWS COLUMNIST Monday, December 18th, 2006
State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who launched a probe in September into allegations that Pinnacle Group LLC had illegally overcharged many rent-regulated tenants for apartment renovations, has reached a deal with the company, one of the city's biggest owners of rent-stabilized units.
Under the deal, Pinnacle will allow an independent investigator appointed by Spitzer's office to review all rent records for the company's nearly 20,000 rent-regulated units. The company agreed to repay any rent overcharges that the investigator uncovers, according to a source with knowledge of the negotiations.
As part of the agreement, which was still being finalized yesterday, Pinnacle will admit no wrongdoing. In addition, the company has agreed to pay $100,000 to the AG's office for the cost of the investigation, the source said.
The deal comes less than two weeks before Spitzer will leave office and be sworn in as governor.
The AG's probe and separate investigations of Pinnacle by the Manhattan district attorney's office and the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal were all launched after the Daily News revealed in a series of articles this year that Pinnacle had filed more than 5,000 eviction proceedings over the past two years against its tenants - nearly one for every four apartments it owns.
The News investigation also found many cases where Pinnacle had inflated the costs of its repairs for vacant apartments and then doubled or tripled monthly rents far above what rent laws allow.
The company's aggressive tactics spawned widespread opposition and numerous protests during the past year from many of its tenants as well as from political leaders and housing advocates in Harlem, Washington Heights and the Bronx, where the bulk of Pinnacle's housing stock is located.
"We are not in a position to comment on any aspect of the review by the attorney general's office at this time," said a spokesman for Pinnacle last night. "The Pinnacle Group, however, has been cooperative throughout this process."
But some tenant groups who heard of the settlement yesterday called it a slap on the wrist to a huge company.
"This agreement is too nice to Pinnacle," said Luis Manuel Tejada, a spokesman for the Mirabal Sisters Cultural Center in Washington Heights. "You just can't tell them to return rents they've overcharged to tenants without also penalizing them for violating state housing laws."
"It sounds like it's, 'Let's pay it off and let the whole thing go away,'" said Kim Powell, of Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem. "This agreement does nothing about the massive eviction proceedings or poor management procedures at Pinnacle. It's only a part of the problem being solved."

Read Agreement:


ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
In the Matter of
PINNACLE GROUP NY, LLC
ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE LAW § 63 (15)
PURSUANT to the provisions of Article 22-A of the New York General Business Law and Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York ("the Attorney General"), and Judith Calogeio, Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal ("DHCR"), pursuant to Rent Stabilization Law, Unconsol. Laws Section 26-S16, caused an inquiry to be made to determine whether certain persons or entities have been or are engaged in wrongful practices or illegal acts concerning certain rent-stabilized properties and apartments owned or managed directly or indirectly by Pinnacle Group NY, LLC and/or its current or former affiliates and subsidiaries (collectively, "Pinnacle") with respect to the computation of rent increases for vacated apartments based upon the costs of improvements to those properties and apartments during the four-year period between December 15,2002, and December 15, 2006 ("the Inquiry").
WHEREAS, on or about August 29,2006, the Attorney General and DHCR served a subpoena on Pinnacle, seeking certain documents in connection with the Inquiry; and
WHEREAS, Pinnacle has cooperated in the Inquiry by producing responsive documents; and
WHEREAS, Pinnacle is committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations, and has advised the Attorney General and DHCR of Pinnacle's desire to resolve the Inquiry; and
WHEREAS, Pinnacle has undertaken and will undertake certain actions, set forth below, to ensure that its accounting for and allocation of the expenses it incurs in improving the apartments and properties it owns are accurate, and that any rent increases which are set based on such improvements and/or based on other appropriate factors are correctly and lawfully computed; and
WHEREAS, the Attorney General and DHCR find the actions set forth below to be undertaken by Pinnacle, appropriate and in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, Pinnacle believes that it is, and at all times, has been, in compliance with New York law, and Pinnacle has cooperated fully with the Attorney General and with DHCR throughout this Inquiry; and Pinnacle is entering into this Assurance of Discontinuance ("Assurance11) so that this matter may be resolved amicably, without further cost or inconvenience; and
WHEREAS, Pinnacle is willing to enter into this Assurance without admitting that it has violated any law, or that it otherwise committed any wrongful or improper act, and the Attorney General, pursuant to Section 63(15) of the New York Executive Law, is willing to accept this Assurance in lieu of commencing any statutory proceedings, and DHCR is willing to accept this Assurance in lieu of commencing any further overcharge proceedings on its own initiative, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES
1. THAT this Assurance shall be binding on, and apply to, Pinnacle Group NY, LLC, its affiliates, subsidiaries and all of their current and former officers, directors, employees, and agents, and any partners of any of them, as well as any successors in interest to any of them

2. THAT for all rent-stabilized apartments owned or managed by Pinnacle, Pinnacle will comply with all applicable laws including but not limited to the Rent Stabilization Law, Local Law 1969, No. 16 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York ("RSL") and regulations thereto, as they may be from time to time modified, including but not limited to:
(a) RSL §§ 26-511 and 26-512 and 9 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 2522.1 and 2521.1 incalculating the rents charged for rent-stabilized apartments owned or managed by Pinnacleimposed as a result of individual apartment improvements and major capitol improvements andnot imposing rents in excess of the permissible limits;
(b) RSL §26-517(f) and 9N.Y.C.R.R. §2528.3 by registering with DHCR the rent amount for each rent-stabilized apartment owned or managed by Pinnacle each year; and
(c) 9 RY.C.R.R § 2522.5(c) by attaching a rider to the leases of tenants of rent-stabilized apartments owned or managed by Pinnacle who sign a vacancy lease, which rider states, in relevant part, the amount of the prior legal regulated rent, if any, and how any increased rent was calculated, as well as a statement that the increased rent was calculated pursuant to the Guidelines of the Rent Guidelines Board and the Rent Stabilization Code.
3. THAT Pinnacle has retained a forensic accounting and investigative firm acceptable to the Attorney General and to DHCR, Forensic Investigative Associates ("FIA"), which will, within one hundred eighty ( 180) days of the execution of this document by the Attorney General and by DHCR audit all rents set by Pinnacle for the four year period between December 15,2002, and December 15,2006, for each rent-stabilized apartment owned or managed by Pinnacle which was vacated within that four year period; and
(a) Should FIA find any rent that cannot be justified based on statutory increases and/or documented improvements and/or other applicable provisions of law, Pinnacle will credit to the tenant (or refund to the fonner tenant) the amount of the overcharge plus interest calculated in the manner approved by DHCR, no later than thirty (30) days from completion of the audit;
(b) For each apartment for which a rent overcharge is identified, Pinnaclewill, no later than thirty (30) days from completion of the audit, revise Pinnacle's rent records toconform with the correct rent as determined by FLA, provide current tenants of those apartmentswith written notice of the lawful stabilized rent, amend tenants' leases, as appropriate, and file with DHCR an amended and superceding rent registration statement for each apartment wherethe rental contained in the current registration statement exceeds the lawful rent as calculated by FIA;
(c) If there are tenants to whom refunds are owed as a result of this audit whocannot be readily located, Pinnacle will take all reasonable steps, as agreed by the AttorneyGeneral and DHCR, to locate the tenants. At a minimum, these efforts shall include Pinnaclesending each such former tenant at his or her last known address a copy of the notice that arefund is due the tenant and of the procedures for obtaining the refund. Pinnacle shall pay therefund due a former tenant within 30 days of receiving a request from such former tenant or hisauthorized representative or within 30 days of learning of the former tenant's currentwhereabouts, hi the event that any of these tenants cannot be located. Pinnacle will maintain themonies for their refunds in an escrow account for one year. After that time has elapsed, if thetenants' whereabouts remain unknown, these funds will be disbursed in a manner agreeable tothe Attorney General and DHCR; and
(d) Within 90 and 180 days from the date of the execution of this Agreement, Pinnacle shall provide the Attorney General and DHCR with verified compliance reports in the form of an affidavit stating in detail (he steps and procedures taken or instituted by Pinnacle to comply with the terms of this Assurance. The compliance report shall include the following:
i. the amount of rent overcharges refunded to each current and former tenant;
ii. copies of all letters or notices sent to tenants pursuant to this Assurance and a description of all efforts made to locate tenants entitled to refunds;
iii. copies of all revised rent records showing the correct rent amounts as calculated by FIA;
iv. copies of all notices provided current tenants of those apartments of the lawful stabilized rent;
v. copies of leases amended as provided in para. 3(b) above; vi, copies of all superseding rent registration statements filed with DHCR pursuant to paragraph 3(b) above;
vii. such additional supporting documentation as the Attorney General requests to demonstrate that FlA's calculation of revised rents and/or overcharges was justified;
h. the name of the financial entity holding the escrow account and an accounting of the funds contained therein; and
i. a copy of FlA's audit report (included in the second compliance report).
The compliance reports shall be sent to Assistant Attorney General Herbert Israel,Consumer Frauds Bureau, Office of the Attorney General, 3rd Floor, New York. New York 10271 or such other person as may be designated by the Attorney General; and Office of General Counsel, Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 25 Beaver Street, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10004 or such person as may be designated by the Commissioner.
4. THAT FLA will also review and approve Pinnacle's current procedures forcomputing rents on newly vacated apartments:
(a) If any of Pinnacle's procedures are found not to be in compliance withapplicable law and DHCR regulations, Pinnacle will promptly implement the recommendationsof FIA for revised procedures; and
(b) For a period of one year from the date of the signing of this Assurance,FIA will monitor Pinnacle's ongoing compliance with the approved procedures for tracking thecosts of renovating individual apartments and for setting rents on newly vacated apartments
5. THAT this Assurance concludes the Inquiry brought by the Attorney General andby DHCR and any action that the Attorney General or DHCR could commence against Pinnacleoi any of its current affiliates or subsidiaries, or any of their current or former officers, directors,shareholders, employees, and agents, and any partners of any of them, arising from or relating tothe subject matter of this Assurance; provided however, that nothing contained in this Assuranceshould be construed to preclude claims by the Attorney General or by DHCR to enforcePinnacle's obligations arising from or relating to the provisions contained in this Assurance.
6- THAT no amendments, modifications or variations of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in a writing executed by both Parties.
7. THAT this Agreement shall apply to and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, present and former directors, officers, shareholders, members, partners, employees, representatives and agents
8. THAT this Agreement contains the entire agreement and understandingconcerning the subject matter hereof between the Panics, and supersedes and replaces all priornegotiations, representations, promises, proposed agreements and agreements, written or oral
9. THAT nothing contained herein shall be construed so as to deprive anyindividual of any remedy under the law including the right of any tenant or former tenant to filean overcharge complaint with DHCR with respect to the subject matter of the Inquiry arid forDHCR to adjudicate it in accordance with the RSL and Rent Stabilization Code. This Assuranceshall not confer on any person any tights as to a third party beneficiary or otherwise againstPinnacle.

10. THAT the parties represent and warrant that their signatories to this Assurancehave authority to act for and bind the respective parties.
11. THAT the acceptance of this Assurance by the Attorney General and by DHCRshall not be deemed or construed as an approval by either of any of Pinnacle's past practices.
12. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT Pinnacle shall payto the Attorney General the sum of $ 100,000.00 as costs of this investigation pursuant toExecutive Law § 63(15).

WHEREFORE, the following signatures are affixed hereto this 18) day of December, 2006
ELIOT SP1TZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
120 Broadway
New Yodrl^ 027,1-0332
Francine James
Assistant First Deputy Attorney General
-
JUDITH CALOGERO
Commissioner of the New York State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal 25 Beaver Street,,?"1 Floor New Yoi k, Ne^York 10004 ,
s .'• ,' , V Si <~- V •'"> / !'By: / ^ Z_________

Viewers are advised if they would like a copy go to www.oag.state.ny.us

100 Families Won't Be Having Turkey At Home

More than a hundred families in a Washington Heights building may not be able to cook Thanksgiving dinner in their homes, because of a broken gas main they say the landlord isn't fixing fast enough. NY1's Solana Pyne filed the following report. “One of the things that you look forward to is just smelling all the foods, you know, during the holidays. You're not going to get that here this year,” said building resident Ramon Breton. That's because residents of these buildings can't cook this Thanksgiving. They've been without gas since Con Edison showed up about a month ago. “A tenant complained that there seemed to be a leak of gas. They checked in the basement and they found there was a leak in one of the pipes. They shut down the gas for the whole building,” said building manager Juan Lopez. The Pinnacle group, which owns and manages the building, called in a plumber to check out the buildings' gas pipes. They all failed integrity tests and are being replaced. Meanwhile, heat and hot water are running off a backup boiler, but tenants can't use their stove or oven. “We have to be buying food out there in the street every day,” said Elizabeth Valdez. “And nobody's going to reimburse all that money that we're spending there.” “This is one of those emergencies that they should pay overtime and either have more crews, or have weekend workers. I don't see that,” adds Ramon. Several residents said the same thing: that crews have not been working Saturdays or Sundays, but the building manager says they're wrong. “I have them working seven days a week. They're here at seven in the morning. They're still here. Usually they wait for tenants to come back from work and they'll keep working,” said Lopez. Lopez says six more workers will start this week. But in Ramon Breton's apartment, the work that has been done has created its own problems. “We've had more mice than ever. We're averaging about three a day,” said Ramon. To try to make up for all the inconvenience, Pinnacle has ordered Thanksgiving dinners for residents. “We catered with Amy Ruth to provide 130 meals for the tenants. So we're doing four meals per apartment and we're going to serve them in the lobby on Wednesday,” said Richard Harley, Community Affairs for Pinnacle. But everyone who spoke with NY1 said they'll be eating elsewhere on Thursday. The building manager says gas will be restored piecemeal as the pipes in particular parts of the building are replaced. If it stays on schedule, he says the work will be done by Christmas. Residents say they're resigned to hoping management's right and that they'll at least be able to cook Christmas dinner at home. – Solana Pyne

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=64515&search_result=1&stid=8

Pinnacle Group: One big city landlord and many little headaches

Landlord's battle illustrates trend of buying deteriorating buildings for big profits
By Jen Benepe

706 Riverside Drive In today's tight rental market, any New York City landlord should be sitting pretty.Unless of course, he happens to be Joel Weiner, owner of the Pinnacle Group.Weiner and his company have come under increasing criticism as they have bought up an estimated $1 billion in distressed buildings in Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx over a two-year period.The complaints have come from tenants' groups, legal aid lawyers and elected officials who say the company has been overly aggressive in raising rents through false major capital improvements (MCIs) and by trying to remove rent-stabilized tenants.The allegations have spurred recent investigations by both the state attorney general and the Manhattan district attorney.If anything, the public tempest about Weiner and the Pinnacle Group (which is backed by the real estate investment fund Praedium) reflects changing times.Deteriorated housing stock, once the bane of a landlord's portfolio, is now a primary source of double-digit growth.Reversing the status quoThe company's business model is a factor: Praedium seeks to invest its money in large numbers of deteriorated properties, make repairs and create a healthy rent roll that will yield a profit within one to two years.But most tenants in the new Pinnacle acquisitions, observers say, are more familiar with the old "slumlord" model, where the landlord lets the building go and the tenants stop paying the rent because they're living in a slum; a downward spiral where no one wins.Most of the 104 properties that Pinnacle purchased from landlord Baruch Singer in 2005 for over $500 million were in severe disrepair, and a number of tenants had stopped paying rent years earlier, said Ken Fisher, a former Brooklyn member of the City Council and Pinnacle's legal representative.It's a situation that can lead to clashes with the tenants as they scramble to pay unpaid rent, or balk at new charges that come with building improvements, Fisher noted.These factors have figured significantly in the negative backlash in part because Pinnacle is the only landlord to undertake such a massive buy-out in the areas, or even in the city, some observers said.Condo conversionsComplicating the picture, some of the properties might be converted to condos: Pinnacle has asked the attorney general's office to approve seven non-eviction plans, most of them on Riverside Drive. One has already been approved.Although Weiner has owned property in New York for 30 years, public opposition to him crystallized when residents of Pinnacle's prime Riverside Drive properties learned of his intent to take their buildings condo. This created fear that they might lose their rent-stabilized apartments, said Kim Powell, a resident in a Pinnacle building who started BRUSH, or Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem.Another group attacking Pinnacle, the Mirabel Sisters, is run by Luis Tejada, a superintendent at 619 West 140th Street who was fired when Weiner took over, Fisher said."They want to throw out people with rent-controlled apartments, but people here can't pay more rent," said Tejada.Pinnacle has also come repeatedly under the sting of the New York Daily News' reporter Juan Gonzalez, who discovered that Pinnacle has sent out 5,000 dispossess notices for the 21,000 units the company owns, a figure the company has not denied, according to press reports.Gonzalez also provided powerful accounts of tenants -- including a 78-year-old woman and her nine cats -- being forced out of their apartments.A recent account of Pinnacle's actions by the New York Times detailed alleged cases of fraud -- including false billings and cost of renovations that were exaggerated -- that are being examined by the district attorney and the state attorney general's office.In one instance, Pinnacle allegedly recorded using 160 light bulbs, 75 pounds of grout, and 130 gallons of paint for the renovation of a single two-bedroom apartment in Harlem in order to justify raising that unit's rent to $1,900.Pinnacle lawyers acknowledge they made mistakes in the case, according to the Times, and the couple occupying the apartment was awarded $10,000 in rent credits, though they claim they are owed $15,000 more.Pinnacle's lawyers also continue to legally challenge some of their claims, the Times reported.Uphill public relations battleThe company has been engaged in an uphill public relations battle ever since.While not disputing the figure of 5,000 dispossess notices, Fisher pointed out that the number is misleading, because multiple notices can be sent to the same apartment, or an apartment could have changed hands during the two and half years the notices were sent out.The number of apartments targeted for eviction is closer to 2,500, or 12 percent of Pinnacle's total portfolio, he said. That is less than the city average of 15 percent, or 320,000 dispossess actions out of 2.1 million units citywide, he claimed."In the first year that Pinnacle owns a building, there is usually a higher number of dispossess cases because there are a large number of tenants who haven't been paying rent," Fisher explained.He said when Pinnacle bought the Dunbar Building, a landmark structure that takes up an entire block in Harlem, the arrears were $4 million on a $1.3 million annual rent roll.He also said that BRUSH and several of the tenants at 706 Riverside Drive were using their stance against Pinnacle as a way to negotiate a lower asking price for their apartments, many of them two- and three-bedroom apartments with sweeping river views and original prewar detailing -- worth an average of $1 million, out of reach for most people living in the building.Currently, most of the rent-stabilized, two- to three-bedroom apartments in the building average just $1,100 a month in rent, confirmed Powell.Fisher said BRUSH and Powell were disingenuous because, although claiming to represent all tenants in Harlem, they had only expressed dissatisfaction with Pinnacle.As to former super and current Pinnacle opponent Tejada, he was fired for incompetence, said Fisher, who showed a reporter pictures of the building he was supposed to care for, 619 West 140th Street, surrounded by garbage.Finally, Fisher noted that the rent payments made by the woman with nine cats had not been properly accounted for by the previous landlord, and that her case had since been resolved.It's also about the system"Many of the cases that Pinnacle brings are not legitimate," said Ken Rosenfeld, director of legal services of the Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp., a nonprofit organization that provides legal services to tenants in the area. "They just sue."But while tenants' rights advocates, elected officials and lawyers interviewed for this article stated repeatedly that they loathed Pinnacle's tactics, sources noted that the state Legislature created the platform for a company to bring action against tenants who know little about how to navigate landlord-tenant court.A lack of public funding for court representation means that many low-income tenants will lose their homes, said Susan Russell, chief of staff for City Council member Robert Jackson, a Democrat whose district includes many of the up-and-coming Riverside Drive addresses."This is a capitalist society -- what are we supposed to say, that residential property should not be profitable?" she asked. Because 92 percent of landlords have lawyers in housing court, while only 8 to 10 percent of tenants are represented, Jackson's office contributed $50,000 toward tenant court representation, "to level the playing field."Observers also agreed that the law governing the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal should enable the agency to do an accounting of charges related to rent increases, and not expect the tenant to do an after-the-fact investigation on a rent number that he or she may not even suspect is inaccurate.Rosenfeld said the blame also lay in the "extreme" lack of affordable housing in the city, and the inability by government to deliver alternatives.Pinnacle responded that, when it buys a property, it must take legal action if a tenant owes rent. Many of the rental records that Pinnacle inherits are a mess, said Fisher, and have created unnecessary dispossess notices."The real problem comes with relatives of people who have lived in these apartments for years," said Russell, who said many find themselves out of a home if they don't have a solid contract with the previous landlord."There are a lot of concerns about gentrification, but it is not being created by Pinnacle," added Fisher.Powell said that Pinnacle sued practically everyone when they bought a building, but that the majority of the tenants didn't qualify for legal aid. "All of them won, but they didn't get their money back," money that could have been spent toward buying their own apartments, she said.Making good on a bad startStill, Pinnacle says it's not only different from many landlords, but that it also provides fair, affordable housing while government has long ago stopped trying to house middle- and lower-class New Yorkers.Fisher said that Pinnacle's intent is to upgrade a property once it has been purchased."In 2005, Pinnacle purchased 6,006 units and we spent $11.5 million on building renovations and $9.7 million on renovation of apartments," he said. Since then, 416 units have turned over to other tenants, but only $4.4 million was allocated to rent-increase calculations, he added.When Pinnacle purchased the Dunbar, there was "broken furniture, a loan shark ring, a brothel, and drug gangs operating out of some of the apartments," said Fisher. "But if you go today the graffiti is gone, the place is spotless."Reporter Wayne Barrett decided against putting Pinnacle on his "10 Worst Landlords" list in the Village Voice because their record was unclear, he wrote.Rosenfeld, who has represented some tenants in court against other big owners in the area like Prana (see below), agreed that Pinnacle had received more attention than other landlords who engaged in the same, or even worse, practices in the area."But when you enter into New York City real estate in such a big fashion and make so many purchases, you unite tenants against you because you are so big," Rosenfeld said.In Pinnacle's favor, Weiner had attended public meetings and made himself accessible, noted Russell.Fisher acknowledged that the company had made some mistakes and had since hired two community outreach staffers, met with more than a dozen elected officials and community leaders, and joined organizations that reach out to tenants.Necessary improvements?Part of the brouhaha is that one person's justifiable building improvement is another person's gingerbread. When MCIs are made, the major capital improvements can be used as a way to increase rent-stabilized rents."Our allegations have been overcharging in rent and capital improvements," said Powell, whose tenants' group raised $6,500 for an independent engineer's assessment of 706 Riverside Drive, which they determined will require an additional $2.8 million dollars worth of work."Flags, gold paint and security cameras," she noted, "are not for the benefit of the tenants."But one man's unneeded gold paint is another's sorely needed paint. Fisher tells the story that someone was complaining that the elevator in 706 Riverside Drive needed to be replaced, and Joel turned to Kim Powell and said, "You told me not to do that because you didn't want an MCI.""That is an example of the level of complexity and acrimony that you might not see in other cities," Fisher said.Funds find profitability, controversy as landlordsThe prospects for growth in changing areas like Washington Heights and the Bronx have attracted large investment funds looking for big profits.Although tenants are quick to attack the Pinnacle Group as making cosmetic improvements to attract higher rents and then passing the charges along to existing tenants, other landlords in the area with a similar financial model have operated quietly out of the limelight.New York City property records show that Prana Growth Fund owns more than 42 properties in the area, most of them in the heavily Dominican areas of Washington Heights, where tenants are less likely to wage public battles because they don't speak English. Prana quickly sold 600 West 161st Street when news of their lawsuits with tenants started becoming public, according to sources.Extell Development recently bought up five buildings from Broadway to Riverside Drive on 137th Street, but tenants say they received notices of the new ownership in their rent slips, and the office number they were given always goes to an answering machine. A spokesman for Extell, George Arzt, said that the company had no intention, so far, of turning those buildings into condos, and would make itself more accessible to tenants in the future.Operated by Kurt McCracken, Richard Esposito and Peter Larsen, Prana, which is based in San Francisco, is described by investment adviser Kochis Fitz in their newsletter as a company that "looks for opportunistic investments in inefficient markets that are generally characterized by unsophisticated, capital-constrained buyers and sellers, significant government regulation (primarily rent control), and a large variance in rents for similar units."The newsletter notes that Prana seeks such investments in urban areas and "once purchased, the objective is to achieve positive cash flow within 12 months." Their long-term goal says Kochis Fitz is "significantly increasing rent rolls," while managing tenant turnover, focusing on tenant relations, and making "cosmetic improvements."Yet tenant groups, local representatives and even legal aid lawyers for the most part were unaware that the company is operating in Upper Manhattan or that many of its tenants have experienced such aggressive tactics when Prana bought out their buildings.Attorneys Robert Sokolski and Daphna Zekaria successfully represented tenants in actions against Prana in 2004 and 2005. Ana Ingersoll, president of a tenants' group at 600 West 161st Street, said the building had 1,023 code violations."Many [of the apartments] are in obvious disrepair: Faucets leak, paint is peeling, bathrooms are moldy, and some stoves have been without gas for months," reported the Gotham Gazette in 2005; the newspaper noted that Prana had not returned its phone calls. In San Francisco, Prana has gained a reputation for "systematic evictions" of tenants of buildings it acquired, according to tenants and lawyers who represented them.Praedium Group, the big backer behind Pinnacle's two-year buying spree, has an investment strategy that reads like a carbon copy of Prana's:"Our strategy," the company wrote on its Web site, is "centered on pursuing middle-market assets with a total cost of less than $75 million each, and focusing on "value enhancement" opportunities, which includes "deterioration of the asset's physical condition; inadequate repairs and maintenance, an ownership that has failed to aggressively manage the current tenant/leasing base," and several other criteria that define distressed properties.Both Prana's and Praedium/Pinnacle's business models seek to upgrade the properties well beyond the level at which they had been operating. But while Pinnacle owner Joel Weiner has appeared publicly to address tenant issues and responded positively to pressure from the media, Prana has made itself completely inaccessible to the public; every single one of their publicly listed numbers is a fax machine. Repeated calls to their offices in San Francisco went unanswered.

NEXT MEETING TBA

COME LEARN WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE AS A TENANT. ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT HOUSING LAWS. IF YOU LIVE IN A BUILDING UNDERGOING A POTENTIAL NON-EVICTION CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION GET THE FACTS.

GET EDUCATED AND STAY INFORMED!

WHEN: NEXT MEETING EARLY DECEMBER TO BE ANNOUNCED

WHERE: ?


PINNACLE TENANTS: HAVE YOUR BUILDING REPRESENTATIVE OR TENANT LEADER CONTACT US TO GET MORE INFORMATION



Contact Information:

BRUSH
Hamilton Grange Station
Box 98
New York, NY 10031
646-248-6915 or harlembrush@yahoo.com


HAD ENOUGH! - JOIN BRUSH!

Broken or no locks; Broken mailboxes; Defective windows; Walls/ceilings cracked/buckling/holes; Lead paint; Leaks, Peeling paint in hallways or dirty hallways;
Elevator not working; Stairs broken or loose; Mold; Garbage problems
Fire escapes rusty / broken / defective / missing; Unsecured basement or roof; Exposed wiring; Rent overcharges;No rent receipts given; Rent receipts incomplete (no date);
Inadequate or no super service, missing Co2 Detector

HAD ENOUGH! - JOIN BRUSH!

Questionable major capital rental improvement increases, eviction notice, succession right issues, or any legal action.

HAD ENOUGH! - JOIN BRUSH!

If your Landlord is harassing you in any form or fashion...

HAD ENOUGH! - JOIN BRUSH!

PRESS RELEASE

June 10, 2006
VOL. I No. 2

BRUSH has been at the forefront of many media discussions regarding the management practices of The Pinnacle Group. During the month of May, the New York Daily News ran countless articles about the plight of many tenants living in Pinnacle-owned buildings. As a result, various community boards convened a special meeting to discuss the management practices of the company and New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was called upon to take action.

In the Wednesday, June 7th edition of the New York Daily News, Juan Gonzalez again assails the nefarious practices of Pinnacle, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal has launched an investigation trying to discern a pattern of conduct, Cardinal Egan of the New York Archdiocese of the Catholic Church is speaking at the rally on Saturday June 10th in Washington Heights, and the Housing Committee Chair of the New York State Assembly, the Honorable Vito Lopez of the 53rd Assembly District in Brooklyn is launching an investigation. Also, the Village Voice ran an article about BRUSH’s attempt to preserve affordable and quality housing by examining the management practices of companies like Pinnacle. The President of BRUSH, Kim Powell was featured on cable TV with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! (a cable news program), and the New York Daily News Columnist, Juan Gonzalez, to talk about the “overpriced” proposed condominium conversion plans filed by The Pinnacle Group with the New York Attorney General’s Office.

BRUSH is currently working with tenant associations, legal service agencies, and various non-profit organizations in an effort to challenge the practices of companies like The Pinnacle Group. Thus far, through their general meetings held each month, BRUSH has put pressure on The Pinnacle Group, and successfully forced them to dismiss a few of the eviction proceedings the company brought against tenants.

As a result of the pressure of the community the Pinnacle Group has called upon BRUSH to assist them in developing their community ties. BRUSH has met with the company and reports that their efforts to improve and enhance the company’s relationship with the community is an evolving process.

Elected officials as well as community–based organization, such as, Mirabal Sisters have now joined in BRUSH’s efforts to challenge the company’s practices. BRUSH is currently working with various organizations and other New York City boroughs to organize and develop strong tenant associations.

Donations and suggestions may be sent to:

BRUSH
Hamilton Grange Station
Box 98
New York, New York 10031

NEXT MEETING: TBA

For more information:
Contact 646-248-6915 or kimlpowell@aol.com or harlembrush@yahoo.com

AS LANDLORD GROWS, SO DOES CRITICISM

Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times
Tenants at a building at 706 Riverside Drive who have formed a group to oppose Pinnacle. Pinnacle Group has become one of the biggest property owners in neighborhoods from Brooklyn to the Bronx.

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: September 3, 2006
Not long ago, Joel Weiner was a small player in New York City’s residential real estate industry. The properties he owned were neither extensive, nor impressive.

But during the past two years, Mr. Weiner, 57, and his firm, the Pinnacle Group, have spent more than $1 billion on hundreds of apartment buildings and quietly become one of the biggest property owners in neighborhoods from Brooklyn to the Bronx.

But Pinnacle has had problems as it expanded: It is the subject of criminal investigations by the Manhattan district attorney and the state attorney general’s office; it has been denounced by Representative Charles B. Rangel and other politicians; and it has been the subject of angry community meetings and rallies and petitions signed by thousands of people who object to its business practices.

Last week, the attorney general’s office subpoenaed Pinnacle documents, including rent registration forms, as part of its investigation, Pinnacle officials said.
The antipathy generated by Mr. Weiner and Pinnacle is the city’s latest entry in the time-honored landlord-versus-tenant struggle, between those who want to keep their rents down and those who want to raise them. But this one is being played out with perhaps greater passion because of a tight housing market and the breakneck speed of gentrification in recent years, which has seemed to transform many formerly undesirable neighborhoods overnight.

Critics accuse Pinnacle of buying buildings and firing superintendents within weeks. Questions have also been raised about whether the company has violated the city’s rent-stabilization laws by sometimes raising rents higher than is legally allowed, through such measures as passing along the cost of questionable renovation expenses. In one case, the cost of installing five toilets was passed on to a tenant in a two-bathroom apartment.

The critics also say the company has been engaging in harassment to force people out of their apartments. Tenants describe being put through a Kafkaesque tangle of eviction notices slipped under doors at night, and of legal challenges made to their right to live in longtime apartments.
In some buildings, one-quarter to one-half of the tenants have received so-called dispossess notices — typically the start of the eviction process — within a few months of Pinnacle’s purchase of the property. The company’s practices, its critics say, are a case study in the gentrification of some of the last working-class neighborhoods in Manhattan.

“We’ve been living here since it was the drug capital of the world, now we are sitting on a commodity,’’ said Rafael Gomez, 48, who lives in a Pinnacle building in Washington Heights, adding that people ask how “do we end up in such a beautiful neighborhood when we are poor people?”

Mr. Weiner denied criminal wrongdoing and said his goal was to be recognized as a model landlord. He has acknowledged raising some rents, but said the increases were necessary so he could provide safe, quality housing. His lawyers maintain that any errors Pinnacle may have made in seeking to evict tenants or in overcharging on rent have been the result of honest mistakes. The company rightly says costs of improving apartments can be legally passed on to tenants.

Mr. Weiner has not disputed that his company has sent out 5,000 dispossess notices to tenants in its approximately 21,000 apartments in the past 29 months. That, say adversaries, is itself cause for alarm.

“When you are trying to evict one out of four tenants, that is what lawyers call prima facie evidence,” Congressman Rangel said. “It is something that screams out for a criminal or civil or legal remedy.”

Mr. Weiner agreed to be interviewed, but did not want his photograph taken because, his lawyers said, he wanted to protect his privacy and because he had received a death threat on the Internet.

Mr. Weiner, who was born in Brooklyn and lives on Long Island, said his objective was to simply get tenants to pay their rents. And he makes no apologies for Pinnacle’s aggressiveness in moving to evict those late on rent or otherwise not legally entitled to live in his buildings.

“When you are in the trenches and you try to turn around a building, it’s not easy,” he said. He has hired a team of prominent lawyers, including former City Councilman Kenneth K. Fisher and Benjamin Brafman, a defense attorney whose clients have included Michael Jackson.

Mr. Weiner describes himself as a hands-on owner who visits his properties frequently and is a stickler for cleanliness, order and the removal of building code violations.

Although much of the criticism about him has focused on gentrification, Mr. Weiner said his recent purchases of buildings in neighborhoods like Washington Heights, Harlem, Inwood and the South Bronx would not necessarily lead to wealthier tenants moving in and displacing
current residents.

“I don’t want to call it gentrification,” he said. “I want to call it meeting community needs.”
He said he typically raises rents after he buys a building in order to pay for the major improvements he must make because previous landlords have neglected many of the properties. Pinnacle legally passes those costs on to tenants in higher rent bills. “This is a very tough business,” he said. “I have a passion for doing it, and doing it right.”

In December 1997, Pinnacle owned 267 apartments in the city, and Mr. Weiner, though wealthy, was unknown, even to many of his competitors. But by May of this year, after an infusion of cash from the Praedium Group, a real estate fund that specializes in investing in inner cities, Pinnacle’s holdings had jumped to 21,642 apartments.

From May 2004 to May of this year alone, the number of Pinnacle-owned apartments had tripled, with most of the recent purchases concentrated in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Among its acquisitions — for $500 million — was the 2,900 apartment portfolio of Baruch Singer, who had become one of Harlem’s most notorious landlords because of the number of code violations and fines his buildings incurred.

Kim Powell, who in November 2005 helped start an anti-Pinnacle group called Brush — Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem — said the group’s primary problem with Pinnacle was how it treats renters. “They have shown an absolute disregard for tenants,” Ms. Powell said.

The Pinnacle model has been to purchase what it refers to as distressed properties — typically apartment buildings that have numerous code violations, are in poor repair, and house many tenants who are behind on rent. The tenants in the 104 Singer buildings, for example, were in arrears for a total of $4.3 million, according to Pinnacle.

The company cleans up the building, often starting at the basement. It scrubs graffiti, installs exterior lighting, cameras and new front doors, and works on code violations. The rent-stabilization laws allow some or all of the cost of that work to be passed on to tenants in the form
of higher rents.

Vacant units often get complete makeovers, including new kitchens. Landlords can also increase rents on vacant apartments by as much as 20 percent under state rent regulations. As a result, rents paid by incoming tenants are often significantly higher than what previous renters of the same apartment had paid.

Tenant advocates say Pinnacle is intent on raising rents to the $2,000-a-month threshold, which would remove the units that are vacant from rent-stabilization protection.
The law would then allow a landlord to rent those apartments for whatever the market will bear.

“That’s their business plan,” said Ken Rosenfeld, director of legal services for the nonprofit Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation. “They’re testing the waters, they’re pushing the envelope.”

Mr. Weiner however, said that few of his apartments had reached the $2,000 level, and that he usually charges tenants less than the legally allowed rent because the current market cannot support higher rents. The city allows an occupied rent-stabilized apartment to be deregulated after its rent hits $2,000, but only if the tenants’ household income is at least $175,000 for two years in a row.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office and the state attorney general’s office have sought Pinnacle work invoices, eviction records, responses to tenant complaints and other documents to try to determine whether there is a pattern of fraud, whether the costs of renovations were exaggerated and false billings were submitted, officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. Some of the accusations against Pinnacle, as well as some details of the investigations, have been reported by The Daily News.

Mr. Weiner said he was cooperating with the inquiries and has pledged to change Pinnacle’s business methods if either office requests it. The company has also hired two community outreach workers with the goal of forming a community advisory panel that would help guide Pinnacle operations.

Further, the company said it was willing to turn over the files of the 1,256 cases it is currently litigating against tenants to elected officials so they can be examined. Finally, it has agreed not to seek to evict elderly tenants without first contacting the city Department of Aging.

“I am looking every day to improve the operation,” Mr. Weiner said.

Many tenants however, say they have had unsettling encounters with Pinnacle and its lawyers.
Karen Flannagan, 53, said that even after she had presented Pinnacle documents that established her residency rights to her Harlem apartment after her mother died, the company slipped an eviction notice under her door and took her to court. Her mother had been the leaseholder and the family had lived in the apartment along with Ms. Flannagan’s teenage daughter for several years.

“Here I am trying to grieve, and I am having to worry about me and my daughter being thrown out,” she said.

After two years and 10 appearances in housing court, Pinnacle abruptly dropped the case a few years ago, she said. Pinnacle lawyers, however, said recently that Ms. Flannagan’s original documents had not been sufficient, though in a statement this week the company said it regretted any inconvenience it had caused her.

Marjorie Charron, 56, and her husband, Ted Charron, 59, moved into a Pinnacle building in Harlem in 2001, paying $1,900 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. They were told by Pinnacle that by law, the company could have charged as much as $2,500.

When the couple realized that other tenants were paying far less, they found out that Pinnacle had claimed to have performed $20,000 worth of remodeling work on the apartment before they moved in, which gave the landlord the right to raise the rent by a corresponding amount.
When they examined Pinnacle’s invoices for the work done on the apartment, however, they found that the company had included charges for 160 light bulbs, 75 pounds of grout, 130 gallons of paint, a $198 nail gun and a $424 drain cleaning device. They also found that some items listed as installed were not there, including oak flooring and a pedestal sink.

Other costs included maintenance work such as painting walls and sanding floors, the costs of which are not permitted to be passed on to a tenant by a landlord.

Five years later, the couple was awarded $10,000 in rent credits from Pinnacle, although they say the company owes them at least $15,000 more. Pinnacle lawyers acknowledged having made mistakes in the Charron case, but continue to legally challenge some of the couples’ claims.
“The average person can’t do this, so by default, Pinnacle wins almost every time,” Ms. Charron said. In a statement this week, Pinnacle said the items had been “inadvertently misallocated” and apologized.

In another case, Erica Martinez, who lives in a Pinnacle building in Washington Heights, received a $1,317.83 rent credit from Pinnacle after the State Department of Housing and Community Renewal ruled that she had been overcharged. In addition, the agency ordered Pinnacle to pay her triple the amount of the overcharge — or a total of nearly $4,000 — because the overcharge had been deemed “willful.”

Pinnacle lawyers said the company had made mistakes in the Martinez case, but had not done so purposely.

In another case, Pinnacle has attempted to pass on charges to tenants for the $21,700 cost of new front doors in one of its buildings in Harlem, even though they were replaced several years earlier. The state eventually quashed the attempt and the tenants’ rents were not increased.
“Pinnacle, if by the second or third overcharge they had said, ‘Something’s wrong, lets make it right,’ I would have given them credit, but they never have,” said Hazel Miura, a tenant organizer in the Bronx.

Another Pinnacle tenant, Mark Gordon, was charged through his rent for the cost of five toilets for his apartment in 2001, even though he had only two bathrooms. Pinnacle’s invoices also included the cost of replacing electrical wiring that appeared not to have been replaced and a double billing for the installation of kitchen cabinets.

Mr. Gordon said three years and $10,000 in legal fees later, Pinnacle resolved the case by agreeing to lower his rent. While at the time, Pinnacle did not admit making any errors, the company recently acknowledged making a mistake.

But Pinnacle’s lawyers said that in only about 50 cases had the company been found to have overcharged tenants and that only about 6 percent of its units were currently under litigation. Pinnacle says that most of the tenants it has moved to evict have failed to pay rent for at least two months.

Mr. Weiner said he instructed his employees to work out cases with tenants amicably, and that he only used the courts as a final resort. His lawyers say that despite handing out thousands of dispossess notices, no more than 351 people have actually been evicted since 2004.

ELIOT GOES IN PURSUIT OF PINNACLE

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Sep 1, 2006
By JUAN GONZALEZ

ATTORNEY GENERAL Eliot Spitzer has subpoenaed thousands of tenant records of the Pinnacle Group LLC, one of the city's biggest owners of rent-regulated housing.
The subpoena, issued Tuesday, is part of a widening probe by Spitzer into allegations that Pinnacle has systematically charged tenants who moved into renovated apartments far higher rents than state housing law allows.
"We received a records request in the form of a subpoena," company attorney Kenneth Fisher said in a written statement. "We had previously volunteered to cooperate with [Spitzer's] inquiry and are confident that Pinnacle's record of investing in and improving properties will result in a favorable outcome after the attorney general's office concludes its review."
Company chief Joel Wiener has defended Pinnacle's actions as legal and aboveboard.
Two months ago, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, in a separate probe, subpoenaed records the company filed with the state Department of Housing and Community Renewal to win approval for rent increases for major capital improvements.
Both investigations followed a series of reports in the Daily News earlier this year on Pinnacle's practices.
That series revealed the company had filed 5,000 eviction proceedings in Housing Court since January 2004 - one for every four of its tenants. The company has doubled or tripled the rents for its vacated units after installing new kitchens and bathroom fixtures. In several cases reviewed by The News, Pinnacle's higher rents were based on fictitious improvements it had claimed to state regulators.
At the Winthrop Gardens, a 330-unit former Mitchell-Lama complex in the Bronx, for example, DHCR recently ordered 19 rent rollbacks on renovated apartments, and the agency is reviewing eight more complaints.
Some tenants won up to $8,000 in back rent, and in at least two cases, DHCR awarded tenants triple damages, which can be assessed whenever the agency deems an overcharge "willful."
Pinnacle has claimed "clerical errors" at Winthrop.
"Any large organization is going to have a certain error rate," Fisher told The News earlier this year.
The Spitzer subpoena has demanded rent records and invoices for all apartment and building-wide improvements at Winthrop and for other Pinnacle properties throughout the city, a source familiar with the investigation said yesterday.
A spokesman for Spitzer declined to comment. But one law enforcement source said the AG's office is working closely with DHCR staff on the probe.
Pinnacle's applications for rent increases based on building- wide improvements - commonly known as MCIs - have also become a focus of Morgenthau's investigation.
In late June, a few weeks after the DA issued his subpoena, Pinnacle withdrew two applications for MCI rent increases it filed with the state, DHCR officials said.
One application was for $46,000 the company said it spent on a new roof at 86-06 35th Ave. in Queens; the other was for $36,000 for a new roof and entrance doors at 91 Fort Washington Ave. in Washington Heights.
"It's unusual for a company to voluntarily withdraw an MCI application," DHCR spokesman Peter Moses said.
Asked about the sudden withdrawal of those MCI applications, a spokesman for Pinnacle cited "business reasons."

This Is A Wakeup Call!

DOWNTOWN EXPRESS
Volume 19 • Issue 11 July 28- - August 3, 2006

PINES IN THE SKY FOR TRIBECA'S WEALTHIEST TENANTS

By Ronda Kaysen
The residents of 101 Warren St. will not need to trek upstate to enjoy pine trees — they’ll have a whole grove of them right outside their window.
The new luxury development currently under construction will come equipped with a bucolic grove of 101 Austrian pine trees set atop the building’s third floor terrace. The building’s sports center will open out on the grove, and all the residents in the 227 condo units will have access to the trees.
“There’s just the serenity and peacefulness of this grove,” said landscape architect Thomas Balsley. “The needles, the texture, the sound of the wind going through the pine trees above. It’s really an extraordinary experience, it’s almost religious. It’s one that would be transported to this roof as a gift to the residents of this building.”
The “gift” will be reserved for the condo residents only. The public and rental tenants in the building’s 163 rental units will not have access to the forest or any of the other amenities reserved for the condo residents.
“You’ll see the pines rising off from the roof, but you will probably have to go across the street to see them,” said Balsley.
In 2005, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. set aside $15 million in Community Development Block Grants for 77 units of affordable rental housing at the lot, formerly called Site 5B. “They will have their own amenity rooms in the rental building,” Jeffrey Sussman, executive vice president for the developer, Edward J. Minskoff Equities, Inc., said in an e-mail. Rental tenants will have a separate fitness room and lounge and a different address: 89 Murray St.
The 1 million sq. ft. development has no public plaza, either. “The rental building was the giveback for the community,” Lawrence Kruysman, Sunshine Group’s director of sales for the property, told Downtown Express.
The Skidmore, Ownings & Merrill-designed building will open at the end of 2007 and already, buyers are grabbing at the luxury abodes, which range from $1.2 million for a one bedroom apartment to a whopping $16 million for a five-bedroom 34th and 35th floor duplex. Nearly 50 percent of the units have sold since they hit the market in April. “Sales have been great,” said Kruysman.
Promotional materials boast a Whole Foods Market, a sports center and the building’s proximity to P.S. 234, “the city’s top ranked public school.”
A promotional video shows a future Tribeca family—equipped with a handsome couple, their two curly-topped young children and miniature dogs—reveling in their sleek, modernist abode.
Current Tribeca residents have long complained that 234, which is currently at 120 percent capacity, will be further squeezed by the new residential developments in the neighborhood.

http://downtownexpress.com/de_168/pinesinthesky.html