Friday, January 29, 2010

Tenants suing Pinnacle get 40 percent off

http://www.alblawfirm.com/siteFiles/News/EE2C9BBBBA3301932B65B6869A054173.pdf
Eight rent-stabilized tenants who sued ubiquitous landlord Pinnacle Group for shoddy living conditions at its Riverside Drive condominium conversion are now buying apartments there at a 40 percent discount under a recent negotiation with the landlord, said the tenants’ attorney.
The attorney, Adam Leitman Bailey, said judges commonly award victorious tenants in such cases with rent credits of around 10 to 20 percent for each month of living under a state of disrepair.

Instead, the case was withdrawn after Pinnacle, owned by Joel Weiner made an out-of-court agreement to let all tenants in the building buy their apartments for 40 percent less than the “free market” price listed three months ago when the agreement was made, along with a $1,000 down payment.

“I told them this is an excellent opportunity to own an apartment,” Bailey said.
In addition, he said Pinnacle has made most of the 45 repairs at 668 Riverside Drive that were listed in the lawsuit, which was filed last summer, and is in the process of completing the rest.
“Pinnacle always disputed that there were any hazardous conditions as set forth in the lawsuit,” said Kenneth Fisher, an attorney for Pinnacle. “The upshot was that some repairs were done by Pinnacle and some money was put into a reserve fund so that the condo association could make the repairs themselves.”

Fisher added, “Getting a discount on the apartments was more than what they would have gotten in court, because they might have gotten nothing.”

The agreement could be viewed as a win-win for Pinnacle, given the difficulty of selling properties in Upper Manhattan. Transactions there dropped up to 90 percent since the previous quarter, according to Streeteasy.com. In an effort to lure buyers, numerous brokers have said they are slashing prices, and must accept offers even below the discounted asking price to close the deal.

But Amy Casey, a Barak Realty sales associate marketing apartments in 668 Riverside Drive, at 144th Street, said 40 percent off is a good deal.
She said Pinnacle is making deals on the building’s market-rate units, “but they’re not dropping prices 40 percent, that’s for sure.”
“It was a very respectful and fruitful dialogue and price negotiation with Mr. Bailey
Tenants suing Pinnacle get 40 percent off 668 Riverside Drive and his clients,” Weiner said through Fisher.

The building is one of at least seven in the area that Pinnacle has controversially sought to convert from rent-stabilized into market-rate condo. The conversion is a non-eviction plan in which apartments are renovated and marketed for sale as tenants vacate them.
Two apartments have closed in the 64-unit building, including the first discounted tenant sale, a 582-square-foot one-bedroom for $141,120. Besides the other discounted tenant sales, Casey said four more are in contract.
Five are on the market for between $195,000 for a 315-square-foot studio and $579,000 for an 844-square-foot two-bedroom.

While the apartments she’s marketing are gut renovated, including all new electric wiring and plumbing, the ones bought by tenants were not, although Bailey said “any necessary repairs that were requested” by the tenants were made.

Pinnacle is one of the city’s largest landlords, having purchased hundreds of apartment buildings this decade, including 104 from landlord Baruch Singer for more than $500 million in 2005. Recently, the company has been shedding some of its portfolios.

Pinnacle is also named in a high profile, federal lawsuit that alleges the company engaged in unlawful eviction practices in an effort to boot tenants from 5,000 of its 21,000 apartments citywide. Pinnacle’s attorney Fisher said that suit is still pending.
04/17/09 at 01:10PM
By Sarah Ryley

New York Landlord's Portfolio Goes Into Special Servicing

New York Landlord's Portfolio Goes Into Special Servicing

Pinnacle Group Not Meeting Financial Expectations on Upper West Side Portfolio
April 1, 2009
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its ratings on commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) GE Commercial Mortgage Corp. Series 2007-C1 Trust on CreditWatch with negative implications. The action comes primarily from problems with loans tied to New York landlord Pinnacle Group and its owner Joel Weiner.

The loan, called the Manhattan Apartment Portfolio loan ($192.1 million), is secured by 1,083-unit apartment units in 36 apartment buildings on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Most of the units in the portfolio are subject to rent-stabilization laws and the borrowers had intended to convert rent-stabilized units into market-rent units.

The loan was transferred to special servicer LNR Partners Inc. on Feb. 26. Standard & Poor's preliminary analysis of the MAP loan indicates a 48% valuation decline since issuance in 2007.

At issuance, Standard & Poor's estimated the borrower would be able to convert 88 units per year to market rents; however, only 14 units have been converted since issuance.

Since its October 2008 review the interest reserve has declined 34% to $11.8 million.

The master servicer, KeyBank Real Estate Capital, reported debt service coverage of 0.36x for the year-ended ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 0.40x for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Wiener has ownership and management interests in an estimated 100 buildings totaling approximately 20,000 rental apartment units in the New York City metropolitan area.

Currently, New York City landlords cannot increase rental rates on rent stabilized units more than approximately 4% annually until they reach $2,000 per month and the tenant income exceeds $175,000 for two consecutive years.

New York state is proposing tenant-friendly changes that could increase the rent trigger to $2,700 and the income trigger to $250,000. This can extend a unit's participation in the rent regulation program up to eight additional years, according to recent analysis by Fitch Ratings.

The Manhattan Apartment Portfolio properties in GE 2007-C1 consist of 36 multifamily buildings (1,083 apartment units and two office suites) situated between West 100th and West 161st streets.

Embattled Landlord Pinnacle Selling 22 Manhattan Buildings

The New York Observer

Embattled Landlord Pinnacle Selling 22 Manhattan Buildings

January 29, 2008 | 6:22 p.m
(Property Shark)"> (Property Shark)">
205 West 109th Street.
Property Shark

An eviction-loving landlord is seeking to send a set of 22 apartment buildings into the hands of a new owner. The Pinnacle Group, led by Joel Weiner, is taking bids on a portfolio of 384 apartments on West 109th Street, a chunk of real estate that could fetch more than $70 million.

Pinnacle, which owns a reported 21,000 apartments citywide, many in the Upper West Side and Harlem, has become a symbol of the pressures of rising real estate values, attracting widespread attention and jabs from politicians for reportedly harsh tactics against tenants.

Since buying a massive portfolio of apartments in 2006 from Baruch Singer—a landlord painted by housing advocates as a notorious slumlord—Pinnacle has sent out eviction notices on an immense scale, presumably aiming to shed existing tenants who pay rent-regulated prices.

The move is a common one for landlords who buy new buildings at high prices, as they seek to wrest greater returns from the apartments, though the scale on which Pinnacle sends out the notices seems well beyond the norm. In 2006, the Daily News reported that Pinnacle had sent out some 5,000 eviction notices in the previous two years.

Now Pinnacle is seeking a new owner for its buildings on 109th Street between Broadway and Columbus Avenue, with its brokers at Eastern Consolidated looking for a single buyer to grab them up in one clean swoop.

Many of the apartments could be easily converted to condominiums, said Eastern Consolidated’s R. Stuart Gross, though rents in the area are also consistently trending up as the neighborhood gains allure.

“There’s just a huge long-term upside,” Mr. Gross said.

Bids are due next week for the portfolio, which mostly consists of two-bedroom apartments. Mr. Gross is joined by Eastern Consolidated’s Peter Hauspurg, Peter Carillo and Harrison Douglas in representing Pinnacle.

A spokesman for Pinnacle declined to comment.

Judge OKs Tenants, Boots Advocacy Group in N.Y. High-Rent Suit

Judge OKs Tenants, Boots Advocacy Group in N.Y. High-Rent Suit

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/andrews/pl/mas/20081020/20081020_buyers&renters.html
By TRICIA GORMAN, Andrews Publications Staff Writer

A renters-rights advocacy group lacks standing to participate in a class-action lawsuit because it suffered no injury as a result of raised rents in New York apartment buildings, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon said the class of individual renters could proceed because they supported their claims under state law and the federal racketeering statute.

Nine tenants of buildings owned by Pinnacle Group filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in July 2007 on behalf of all tenants who leased apartments from the company since July 2004.

Nonprofit community group Buyers & Renters United to Save Harlem joined the tenants in the suit.

Named defendants Pinnacle Group and founder Joel Wiener own 400 buildings and more than 21,000 apartments in New York City.

The plaintiffs say the defendants are trying to force them out of their rent-controlled apartments so they can develop higher-rent apartments and condominiums.

Pinnacle and Wiener misrepresented the amount of legally allowed rent, lied about making repairs and improvements to the apartments, and filed baseless eviction notices to drive lower- and middle-income tenants out, the suit says.

The suit alleges the defendants violated New York's Consumer Protection Act by engaging in deceptive acts such as demanding illegally high rents and filing the baseless eviction actions.

They also violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by conducting business through intimidation and extortion, the plaintiffs say.

The defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the advocacy group lacked standing to bring a RICO claim and that the tenants failed to support their RICO and state law claims.

Judge McMahon dismissed the group from the suit.

Buyers & Renters had alleged that the inflated rents caused it injury because the scheme hurt its efforts to organize and advocate on behalf of tenants.

That argument is not sufficient to confer standing for a RICO claim, the judge said, as the law requires an injury to "business or property," not simply difficulty in performing one's work.

She denied the defendants' other dismissal motions, finding that the tenants sufficiently support their claims.

Judge McMahon said the plaintiffs provided sufficient examples of the defendants' alleged mail fraud and extortion in support of the RICO claim.

The complaint lists more than 30 instances in which the defendants allegedly used the mail to send communications aimed at defrauding the plaintiffs, such as termination and eviction notices and lease renewal forms, the judge said.

Though Pinnacle and Wiener may not have mailed the material personally, landlords who worked for them did, which sufficiently links the defendants to the alleged mail fraud, Judge McMahon added.

The defendants further argued that the plaintiffs could not sufficiently state a violation of the state's consumer-protection law because the relationship between a landlord and a tenant is contractual and not consumer-oriented.

The judge disagreed, saying New York courts have given tenants private rights of action against landlords.

Controversial Pinnacle Group Sheds Uptown Property


The New York Observer

Controversial Pinnacle Group Sheds Uptown Property (Updated)

March 25, 2009 | 3:32 p.m
(Property Shark)"> (Property Shark)">
169 East 101st Street
Property Shark

Controversial landlord Pinnacle Group has shed one of its uptown properties for $12.5 million, according to city property records.

A group called Latham Properties, affilitated with the budget Latham Hotel on East 28th Street, bought 169-175 East 101st Street, a 119-unit apartment building, on February 26.

The buyer could not be reached for comment. The seller had acquired the building in 2004 for $9.4 million.

Pinnacle Group, which, according to a July 2007 New York Post article titled "'Slum Bum' Hit with RICO Suit," owns 420 buildings in Manhattan and the Bronx, has been the subject of repeated attacks by housing advocates for its tactics in turning affordable units into market-rent apartments.

According to a 2006 Village Voice exposé, a community forum on Pinnacle's alleged abuses attracted 200 residents:

One by one, residents accused Pinnacle of aggressive court tactics—attempts to violate tenants' succession rights, for example, and to evict for bogus reasons. They complained that the company fails to make repairs, or delays repairs, or does shoddy improvements to raise rents beyond regulated limits. Mostly, they blasted the real estate giant for moving into their neighborhoods and moving them out.

In January of 2008, Pinnacle hired Eastern Consolidated to market a portfolio of its properties, hoping to get more than $70 million for 384 apartments, according to an article by my colleague Eliot Brown. Sources say that Eastern Consolidated did not do this deal.

Pinnacle sues Stringer over tenant conversations

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/pinnacle-sues-stringer-over-tenant-conversations

Pinnacle sues Stringer over tenant conversations

June 23, 2008 03:17PM
Scott Stringer

The Pinnacle Group filed a lawsuit against Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer in New York State Supreme Court this month to force his office to release records of his communications with tenants who filed a federal lawsuit against the controversial real estate company.

Pinnacle sued on June 13, less than a year after a tenants' organization and 10 residents filed a lawsuit in Manhattan U.S. District Court against Joel Wiener's Pinnacle Group alleging deceptive practices, harassment and racketeering.

Pinnacle has denied the charges, and moved in November to have the case dismissed. The judge has yet to rule on the motion.

The Manhattan-based real estate giant owns more than 21,000 rent-regulated apartments in about 420 buildings in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.

Pinnacle sued Stringer, as well as Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, after Stringer criticized the company in a public conference call on July 11, 2007, by saying: "The name Pinnacle is just simply a code word for mass eviction."

Wiener's company filed a Freedom of Information Law request in October to review Stringer's records supporting that comment, including information from a housing workshop and public hearing; as well as the communications with the tenant plaintiffs in the federal suit.

Stringer's spokeswoman, Carmen Boon, said in an email that his office did not release all the documents Pinnacle requested because many were exempt from disclosure under the state's Freedom of Information Law. Asked if Stringer would turn them over, she responded that the documents were exempt, but that Pinnacle had the right to sue for them in court.

An attorney for Pinnacle declined to comment. Stringer and Gotbaum did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kim Powell, one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit and a Pinnacle tenant in Harlem, said the company wanted to obtain the information to get a leg up to fight the tenants' case alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO.

"Knowing what was said and what is on the record sort of gives them a heads up of our legal strategy," she said. "This is another form of harassment and intimidation."

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the city Department of Housing and Community Renewal struck a deal with Pinnacle in late 2006 that allowed an independent investigator to review the firm's records, following state investigations of allegations of tenant harassment.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 'THE STATE OF NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS BUREAU: PINNACLE GROUP NY, LLC ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/civil_rights/pdfs/pinnacle-aod-final-executed.pdf

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

No Longer Majority Black, Harlem Is in Transition

Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times

Joshua S. Bauchner, with his 2-year-old daughter, Evlalia, moved to Harlem in 2007. “In Manhattan, there are only so many directions you can go,” he said.


Published: January 5, 2010

For nearly a century, Harlem has been synonymous with black urban America. Given its magnetic and growing appeal to younger black professionals and its historic residential enclaves and cultural institutions, the neighborhood’s reputation as the capital of black America seems unlikely to change soon.

Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times

“I feel a community here that I don't feel in other parts of the city,” said Laura Murray, a student.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

But the neighborhood is in the midst of a profound and accelerating shift. In greater Harlem, which runs river to river, and from East 96th Street and West 106th Street to West 155th Street, blacks are no longer a majority of the population — a shift that actually occurred a decade ago, but was largely overlooked.

By 2008, their share had declined to 4 in 10 residents. Since 2000, central Harlem’s population has grown more than in any other decade since the 1940s, to 126,000 from 109,000, but its black population — about 77,000 in central Harlem and about twice that in greater Harlem — is smaller than at any time since the 1920s.

In 2008, 22 percent of the white households in Harlem had moved to their present homes within the previous year. By comparison, only 7 percent of the black households had.

“It was a combination of location and affordability,” said Laura Murray, a 31-year-old graduate student in medical anthropology at Columbia, who moved to Sugar Hill near City College about a year ago. “I feel a community here that I don’t feel in other parts of the city.”

Change has been even more pronounced in the narrow north-south corridor defined as central Harlem, which planners roughly define as north of 110th Street between Fifth and St. Nicholas Avenues.

There, blacks account for 6 in 10 residents, but those born in the United States make up barely half of all residents. Since 2000, the proportion of whites living there has more than doubled, to more than one in 10 residents — the highest since the 1940s. The Hispanic population, which was concentrated in East Harlem, is now at an all-time high in central Harlem, up 27 percent since 2000.

Harlem, said Michael Henry Adams, a historian of the neighborhood and a resident, “is poised again at a point of pivotal transition.”

Harlem is hardly the only ethnic neighborhood to have metamorphosed because of inroads by housing pioneers seeking bargains and more space — Little Italy, for instance, has been largely gobbled up by immigrants expanding the boundaries of Chinatown and by creeping gentrification from SoHo. But Harlem has evolved uniquely.

Because so much of the community was devastated by demolition for urban renewal, arson and abandonment beginning in the 1960s, many newcomers have not so much dislodged existing residents as succeeded them. In the 1970s alone, the black population of central Harlem declined by more than 30 percent.

“This place was vacated,” said Howard Dodson, director of Harlem’s Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. “Gentrification is about displacement.”

Meanwhile, the influx of non-Hispanic whites has escalated. The 1990 census counted only 672 whites in central Harlem. By 2000, there were 2,200. The latest count, in 2008, recorded nearly 13,800.

“There’s a lot of new housing to allow people to come into the area without displacing people there,” said Joshua S. Bauchner, who moved to a Harlem town house in 2007 and is the only white member of Community Board 10 in central Harlem. “In Manhattan, there are only so many directions you can go. North to Harlem is one of the last options.”

In 1910, blacks constituted about 10 percent of central Harlem’s population. By 1930, the beginnings of the great migration from the South and the influx from downtown Manhattan neighborhoods where blacks were feeling less welcome transformed them into a 70 percent majority. Their share of the population (98 percent) and total numbers (233,000) peaked in 1950.

In 2008, according to the census, the 77,000 blacks in central Harlem amounted to 62 percent of the population.

The number of blacks living in greater Harlem hit a high of 341,000 in 1950, but their share of the population didn’t peak until 1970, when they made up 64 percent of the residents. In 2008, there were 153,000 blacks in greater Harlem, and they made up 41 percent of the population.

About 15 percent of Harlem’s black population is foreign-born, mostly from the Caribbean, with a growing number from Africa.

Some experts say the decline in the black population may be overstated because poorer people are typically undercounted by the census, and Harlem has a disproportionate number of poor people. Others warn that proposed development and higher property values may force poor people out, and they say that when the city was the neighborhood’s leading landlord it should have increased ownership opportunities for Harlem residents .

“Gentrification — the buying up and rehabilitation of land and buildings, whether by families or developers, occupied or abandoned — means a rising rent tide for all, leading inevitably to displacement next door, down the block, or two streets away,” said Neil Smith, director of the Center for Place, Culture and Politics at the City University of New York Graduate Center.

Mr. Dodson of the Schomburg Center moved from Riverside Drive to Newark not long ago. He said, “I tell people that I can’t afford to live in Harlem or in New York in the manner I deserve to.”

Other analysts point to the outflow of some blacks and the influx of others as positive evidence that barriers to integration have fallen in other neighborhoods and that Harlem has become a more attractive place to live.

“It’s a mistake to see this only as a story of racial change,” said Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president. “What’s interesting is that many African-Americans are living in Harlem by choice, not necessity.”

Andrew A. Beveridge, a sociologist at Queens College, said, “Harlem has become as it was in the early 1930s — a predominantly black neighborhood, but with other groups living there as well.”

Ronald Copney, a former limousine driver, and his two sisters share a brownstone on West 147th Street that his grandmother bought in 1929. He rents two floors to tenants, one of whom is white.

“This was always a very nice neighborhood,” he said. “In a way, it’s better now as far as property values are concerned.”

Geneva Bain, the district manager of Community Board 10, blamed the economy and the lack of jobs for the dwindling number of blacks.

She acknowledged, though, that white newcomers have sometimes been greeted ambivalently. “Integration is very subjective,” Ms. Bain said. “One person’s fellowship is another person’s antagonism. I am one who thinks that central Harlem has become a better place because of integration.”

Mr. Dodson, the Schomburg Center director, said one source of historic resentment remained: that blacks still accounted for a tiny minority of the area’s property owners.

“There are people who would like to maintain Harlem as a ‘black enclave,’ but the only way to do that is to own it,” Mr. Dodson said. “That having been said, you can’t have it both ways: You can’t on the one hand say you oppose being discriminated against by others who prevent you from living where you want to, and say out of the other side of your mouth that nobody but black people can live in Harlem.”

“The question of whether it’s a good thing or not,” he added. “I honestly can’t make that judgment yet.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=all