Deborah E. Riegel

184 Joralemon LLC v. Brooklyn Law School, 31 Misc.3d 1201(A) (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2011); 184 Joralemon LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC, Kings County Clerk Index No. 21081/11; David Gordon, Jacqueline Swiskey v. Brian Palumbo, et al., 377 Fed. Appx. 39, 2010 WL 1909550 (C.A.2 (N.Y.)) (2010); Louise E. Dembeck v. 220 Central Park South, LLC, 33 A.D.3d 491, 823 N.Y.S.2d 45 (2006); TSI West 14, Inc. v. Samson Associates, LLC, 8 A.D.3d 51, 777 N.Y.S.2d 29 (2004); VNO 100 West 33rd Street LLC v. Square One of Manhattan, Inc., 22 Misc.3d 560 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2008); Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster Street, Inc., 23 A.D.3d 259, 805 N.Y.S.2d 304 (2005); Flushing Expo, Inc. v. New World Mall, Queens County Clerk Index No. 28443/11.

Recent Cases:

• 184 Joralemon LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC, et al.: In this action, R&E successfully enforced a liquidated damages provision of a contract of sale which permitted Brooklyn Law School's contract assignee to retain a $1,262,000.00 contract deposit due to a purchaser's failure to close. R&E also successfully moved for the dismissal of nine third-party claims asserted by the defendant against Brooklyn Law School and four other individual third-party defendants, including claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract and prospective business opportunity, prima facie tort, misrepresentation and conversion.

• S&P Associates of New York LLC v. Vera Salnikova and Ronald Stone: R&E successfully obtained a judgment of possession for a 2,777 square foot, five bedroom, four bathroom apartment with panoramic views of Central Park and the Time Warner Center. The building in which the apartment was located was converted to condominium ownership pursuant to a "non-eviction" offering plan. The tenant chose not to purchase her apartment at the "insider price" during the exclusive purchase period and was therefore offered a lease containing a market rent, pursuant to General Business Law 352-eeee(2)(c)(iv) (the "Martin Act"). The rental rate in the lease offered by the Sponsor increased from $8,050 to $15,500 per month. When the tenant refused to execute the lease, the Sponsor commenced eviction proceedings. The central issue in the proceeding was whether the monthly rent set by the Sponsor constituted an unconscionable rent under the Martin Act. The Court concluded that the Sponsor properly established the rent based upon the rents of comparable apartments in the building and that the tenant had not been subjected to an "unconscionable increase beyond ordinary rentals" in violation of the Martin Act. The Court also awarded the Sponsor a money judgment for use and occupancy in the amount of $139,840 and attorneys' fees.
(Civil Court, New York - Decided: 10/17/2011)

• Tennant v. Manhattan Skyline Management Corp.: Order declaring that no illusory prime tenancy existed based upon the fact that they entered into possession of the apartment as subtenants after the legal monthly rent exceeded $2000 and Plaintiffs were not entitled to any greater rights than they would have had if they entered into a lease after the tenant vacated.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York - Decided: 6/16/2011)