University of Virginia, B.A., 1988
Law School Attended:
Cornell University Law School, J.D., 1991
Year of First Admission:
1991, New Jersey; 1991, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey; 1992, New York; 1992, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
New York, N.Y., April 30, 1966
*** Representation of client GF Princeton, LLC in an ongoing ground lease rent dispute with Herring Land Group over commercial property in Ewing, New Jersey. A significant 2013 victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of the client affirmed a March 2012 District Court decision disallowing the payment of ground rent for a 5-year period (2006-2011) for which Herring Land Group was claiming approximately $5.5 million. *** Palisadium Management Corp. v. Carlyle Towers Condominium, Inc., (Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County; August 2014) Mr. Koenigsberg played a supporting role in the win of a major motion for summary judgment on behalf of Carlyle Towers, a large condominium association in Cliffside Park, New Jersey. The plaintiff claimed that approximately $2.5 million was owed to it pursuant to the terms of a 1989 Additional Recreational Facilities Agreement (ARFA) for fees in connection with the Carlyle Towers' use of a health club, known as the Palisadium, which was created by the developer when he built Carlyle Towers, but was a separate entity. The developer had Carlyle Towers enter into a 75 year plus contract. On a motion for summary judgment, the Court (Hon. Rachael Harz, JSC) dismissed plaintiff's claims in their entirety because she determined the 1989 ARFA was “unconscionable and illegal” pursuant to certain sections of the condominium statute, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-32. The Court also found that an illegal agreement is void ab initio regardless of the subsequent conduct of the parties. The Court further determined that “a course of conduct” was established by the parties in accordance with two unsigned ARFA amendments, which despite never being signed by the plaintiff, created a “course of conduct” by which the parties conducted business. As a consequence, the Court found that the plaintiff's acceptance of certain payments without protest for in excess of 14 years resulted in a waiver and/or estoppel of the plaintiff's claims premised on the unconscionable 1989 ARFA.