November, 2008

SUCCESSFUL BUY-OUTS

David A. Kaminsky & Associates P.C. were successful in obtaining substantial buy-outs for two hotel code rent stabilized tenants who resided in units located on West 34th Street, New York, NY, which was a single room occupancy hotel. The owner of the premises filed an application with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development for the issuance of a Certificate of Non-Harassment and an application with DHCR for demolition of the building and then proceeded to commence an action against our clients seeking to obtain legal possession of the premises.

After many conferences and negotiations, and with our counsel and representation, the owner elected to “buy-out” our clients. We are pleased to announce that each of our clients received one and a half million dollars for their decision to give up their tenancy rights and move out of the rent stabilized units.

Manhattan residences fight for their rights.
Manhattan residences fight for their rights.

APPELLATE COURT VICTORY

We are pleased to announce that our firm was successful in obtaining a favorable decision from the Appellate Term, First Department wherein a Civil Court, New York County after trial decision and final judgment against our clients, the Respondents in a non-primary residence holdover matter, was reversed. Due to the Appellate Term decision reversing the trial court, our clients were able to keep their rent-stabilized apartment. The Appeal was argued at the Appellate Term by David A. Kaminsky.

HIGHLIGHTS

David A. Kaminsky was quoted in the New York Times Website Real Estate Question and Answer section dated October 17, 2008 as follows:

Q.  I recently purchased a co-op apartment. In both the broker’s listing materials and the sale contract, the maintenance fee was misstated by nearly $100.00. The maintenance had been increased in January, though the apartment was not listed for sale until May and the sale closed in August. Is there any recourse?

A.  David A. Kaminsky, a Manhattan real estate lawyer, said the most commonly used form for a contract of sale for a co-op apartment provides that the amount of maintenance must be correct as of the date of the contract and that this representation survives the closing.

What that means, he said, is that if a buyer discovers that the maintenance fee in the contract was wrong, he or she has a right to sue the seller. “But, pursuant to the typical contract, any lawsuit based upon a breach of that promise must be brought within one year,” he said.

It appears, he said, that the writer has a valid claim against the seller for violating the provision of the contract that requires accurate disclosure of the maintenance fee.

He noted, however, that determining the damages for the incorrect maintenance charge “might be tricky.” It is likely, for example, if the parties do not agree on an amount, that the courts would try to establish a “present value” of the damages by multiplying the $100 a month over a specific number of years. Perhaps, he said, the so-called “average” time a person stays in a home — seven years — might be a good starting point.

To review the article log on to:http://realestateqa.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/a-seller-understates-a-co-ops-monthly-fees/

NEWS & BRIEF

Congratulations to our Associate James A. English on his wedding to Heather Hawkins and congratulations to our Paralegal Woodrow Chen on his wedding to Maria H. Albuquerque.

We want to extend a warm welcome to our newest support staff member Karee Parara. She will be an asset to our firm.

Leave a Reply