Jeffrey Turkel

925 D Realty v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal, 85 A.D.3d 645, 925 N.Y.S.2d 822 (151 Dep't 2011); 936 Second Ave. L.P. v. Second Corp. Dev. Co., Inc., 82 A.D.3d 446, 917 N.Y.S.2d 865 (151 Dep't 2011); Modern Art Services, Ltd. v. OCA Long Island City, LLC, 84 A.D.3d 1040, 923 N.Y.S.2d 337 (2d Dep't 2011); Roach v. Benjamin, 78 A.D.3d 468, 909 N.Y.S.2d 635 (1st Dep't 2010); Samson Mgt. LLC v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal, 76 A.D.3d 1024, 907 N.Y.S.2d 513 (2d Dep't 2010); Ulysses I & Co., Inc. v. Feldstein, 75 A.D.3d 990, 906 N.Y.S.2d 380 (3d Dep't 2010); Chelsea 19 Associates v. James, 67 A.D.3d 601, 889 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1st Dept. 2009); Pultz v. Economakis, 10 N.Y.3d 542, 860 N.Y.S.2d 765 (2008); Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Munroe, 10 N.Y.3d 18, 853 N.Y.S.2d 263 (2008); Georgia Properties, Inc. v. Dalsimer, 38 A.D.3d 332, 835 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1st Dep't 2007); HGCD Retail Services, LLC v. 44-45 Broadway Realty Co., 37 A D.3d 43, 826 N.Y.S.2d 190 (1st Dep't. 2006); 520 E. 81st Street Associates v. State of New York, 19 A D.3d 24, 799 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1st Dep't. 2005); KSLM-Columbus Apartments, Inc v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 5 N.Y.3d 303 801 N Y.S.2d 783 (2005); Noto v. Bedford Apts. Co., 21 A.D.3d 762, 801 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1st Dep't. 2005); 520 E. 81st St. Assocs. v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 43, 750 N.Y.S.2d 833 (2002); Kaufmann's Carousel, Inc. v. City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 301 A.D.2d 292, 750 N Y S.2d 212 (4th Dept. 2002); Rima 106 L.P. v. Alvarez, 257 A.D.2d 201, 690 N Y S.2d 40 (1st Dept. 1999); Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 229 A.D.2d 197, 654 N.Y.S.2d 339 (1st Dept. 1997); Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 84 N.Y.2d 385, 618 N.Y.S.2d 857 (1994); Eastern Pork Products v. New York State Div. of Housing and Community Renewal, 187 A.D.2d 320, 590 N.Y.S.2d 77 (1st Dept. 1992).

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.

• 220 CPS "Save Our Homes" Assn. v. DHCR: Appellate Division held that DHCR need not conduct a SEQRA review in connection with owner's application to recover rent stabilized tenants' apartments, based on the owner's intention to demolish the building.

• In re Metropolitan Transit Authority (Fulton Street Transit Center): Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's condemnation award in favor of our client of over $35 million, and also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and expenses based on fact that the condemnation award was so far in excess of the MTA's initial offer of just compensation.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York - Decided: 7/21/11)

• Modern Art Services, Ltd v. OCA Long Island City, LLC: In Modern Art, Rosenberg & Estis represented a commercial landlord of a building in Long Island City. After the landlord exercised its option to terminate the lease, the tenant sued the landlord, alleging breach of the warranty of habitability and nuisance. At a deposition, the tenant's principal admitted that the tenant had suffered no actual damages, but was seeking over one million dollars in compensation based on the tenant's alleged "aggravation." The landlord moved for summary judgment based on the principal's admission. Supreme Court denied the motion, ruling that if the principal's allegations as to the landlord's conduct were true, damages could be "inferred," despite the principal's statement that tenant had not suffered damages. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed, holding that in response to the landlord's motion for summary judgment, the tenant was obligated to put forth affirmative proof of actual damages. Because the tenant failed to do so, the Appellate Division granted the landlord summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
(Appellate Division, Second Department - Decided: 5/17/11)

• Casado v. Markus: In Casado v. Markus, various tenants challenged the legality of Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) Orders 40 and 41, which required certain rent stabilized tenants renewing their leases to pay an additional increase where their rents were below $1,000 per month. The tenants alleged that the RGB did not have the authority to impose this surcharge, which they described as a "tax on the poor." The Supreme Court and the Appellate Division agreed, invalidating the surcharge. The matter went to the Court of Appeals, wherein Rosenberg & Estis represented amici curiae Rent Stabilization Association (RSA) and Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP). The Court of Appeals, reversing, held that the Rent Stabilization Law did not prohibit the RGB from making "common sense distinctions" between discrete classes of apartments, as the RGB had been doing for 40 years. The Court reinstated the surcharges, authorizing landlords throughout New York City to collect millions of dollars in back surcharges.
(Court of Appeals of New York - Decided: 3/24/2011)