Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP UPDATE

Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP E D I T O R S Magda L. Cruz Aaron Shmulewitz UPDATE Kara I. Rakowski S E P T E MBE R VOL U M E 3 3 L I T I G AT I O N INSIDE THIS ISSUE LITIGATION UPDATE THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE HAS BEEN REOPENED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS...1 THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE HAS BEEN REOPENED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS LITIGATION UPDATE COMMERCIAL BROKER WINS COMMISSION DISPUTE AGAINST BUYER...6 TRANSACTIONAL UPDATE CONVERSION OF HDFC S IN LIGHT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MEMO...7 By Lisa Gallaudet CO-OP CONDO CORNER BY AARON SHMULEWITZ...8 LITIGATION UPDATE RIGHT OF RESCISSION UNDER THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT...10 NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS...11 On June 26, 2015, the State Legislature amended the Loft Law. The following are the most significant changes to the Loft Law: The Deadline To Apply For Coverage Was Extended To June 25, 2017 The Legislature extended the deadline for tenants to apply for Loft Law coverage, and for owners to submit registration applications, for an additional two year period, commencing June 26, 2015 through June 25, 2017. Prior to June 26th, the deadline for all owners to register their buildings and for all occupants to file a coverage application was March 11, 2014. This deadline applied to buildings that qualified under the original 1982 Loft Law and also the 2010 expansion and 2013 amendment to the Loft Law. It was the first time the Legislature set a deadline, creating a finite number of IMD buildings in New York City as of March 12, 2014. However, by the recent amendment, the number of registered covered IMD units should significantly increase. WE VE GONE GREEN EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2014, BBWG HAS DISCONTINUED THE PRINTED COPY OF THE NEWSLETTER. TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THE NEWSLETTER, PLEASE SIGN UP FOR OUR MAILING LIST AT WWW.BBWG.COM. Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel 212.867.4466 Fax 212.867.0709 Attorney Advertising 1

A building that did not have a certificate of occupancy on June 21, 2010 for applications seeking coverage under MDL 281(5), a tenant may be qualified for protection under the Loft Law if: 1. The building once contained manufacturing or commercial use; and 2. is not located in an Industrial Business Zone that is not exempt from Loft Law coverage 1 ; and 3. the building was occupied for residential purposes as the residence or home of any three 2 or more families living independently from one another for a period of twelve consecutive months during the period commencing January 1, 2008 and ending December 31, 2009 (the Window Period ), including the unit seeking coverage; and 4. the unit is at least 400 square feet; and 5. the unit seeking coverage must not be located in a basement or cellar; and 6. has at least one entrance that does not require passage through another residential unit to obtain access to the unit; 7. has at least one window opening onto a street or a lawful yard or court as defined in the zoning resolution; and The 2013 Amendments Were Extended for Four Years The amendments to the Loft Law signed into law on January 31, 2013 were extended for four more years (until 2019). The most significant of the 2013 amendments that have now been extended through 2019 are: 1. The rent increases building owners are entitled to upon reaching certain benchmarks in the legalization process remain reduced from 6% (upon the filing of an alteration application), 8% (upon the issuance of a work permit), and 6% (upon achieving Article 7-B compliance with the Multiple Dwelling Code) to 3%, 3%, and 4%; and 2. The minimum size of a unit that qualifies for loft coverage remains 400 square feet (it was originally 550 sq ft); and 3. A defense to coverage that relies on the claim that the building contained a hazardous use incompatible with residential use, as defined by the Loft Law, must not only prove that the use existed on the effective date of the Loft Law (June 21, 2010) but also that it remained in operation through the date of the coverage application. 8. there were no hazardous uses inherently incompatible with residential use 3 in the building on June 21, 2010 that remain active and operational through the date of the application. If you own a building that is registered with the Loft Board and you have residential units that are not currently registered you are vulnerable to possible coverage applications being filed. Tenants that are currently in residential possession of a non-registered IMD, and can meet the above qualifications, will be able to file an application for coverage through June 25, 2017 4. What s most alarming about this amendment is that if you entered into a lease with a tenant subsequent to June 21, 2010, or even subsequent to March 14, 2014, that tenant can seek to be covered under the Loft Law despite not being in possession during the Window Period, the date the Loft Law took effect, or on the original deadline to file, so long as they can meet the above requirements. If your building is not zoned for residential use and you have units in the building that you wish to convert to residential use, the extension of the deadline will allow you to amend your registration to include additional IMD units so long as the units meet the above qualifications. In this situation, the amendment is beneficial because it is an easier and more cost effective way to convert a unit to residential use, rather than seeking a variance from the Board of Standards and Appeals to permit residential use. If you own a building that contains any units that are not yet registered with the Loft Board and may qualify for coverage, it is advisable to consult with counsel to discuss the best way to proceed. The Loft Law is complex and there are fact-specific circumstances that alter strategies on conversion or defense of coverage. 1 Areas that are exempt from this restriction are Williamsburg/Greenpoint or North Brooklyn industrial business zones; and buildings located in certain portions of Long Island City. 2 Buildings located north of West 24th Street and south of West 27th Street and west of Tenth Avenue and east of Eleventh Avenue in Manhattan need only establish that there were two or more residential families during the Window Period. 3 An inherently incompatible use is defined as use groups in sections 15-18 of the zoning resolution and that the Loft Board has determined are inherently incompatible with residential use (29 RCNY 2-08(k) appendix). 4 The amendment of the Loft Law also removed the language prohibiting the Loft Board from accepting applications past the deadline. 2 3

The Code Compliance Deadlines Were Amended to Include Deadlines for Units Seeking Coverage or Registration After March 11, 2014 Deadlines established for IMD units listed on an application for coverage or registration filed with the Loft Board, or in a court pleading, after March 11, 2014: Examples of such conditions or circumstances beyond the owner s control include, but are not limited to, a requirement for a certificate of appropriateness for modification of a landmarked building, a need to obtain a variance from the Board of Standards and Appeals or the denial of access by the Tenant. New Owner Alteration Application: Permit: within 9 months of either the date of the initial application for coverage or the date of the Loft Board s issuance of an IMD No. or the date of the service of the pleading, whichever is earlier. within 12 months of either the date of the initial application for coverage or the date of the Loft Board s issuance of an IMD No. or the date of the service of the pleading, whichever is earlier. Pursuant to Article 29 of the Rules of the City of New York, section 2-01, an owner may seek an extension of the legalization deadlines after the deadline has passed in instances where title to the IMD was conveyed to a new owner after the code compliance deadline has passed, the new owner may file an extension application for the past deadline within 90 calendar days from acquiring title. The Loft Board has the discretion to grant up to a one year extension. Collection Of Rent Article 7-B Compliance: Certificate of Occupancy: within 18 months of obtaining the work permit. within 30 months of either the date of the initial application for coverage or the date of the Loft Board s issuance of an IMD No. or the date of the service of the pleading, whichever is earlier. In defense of a nonpayment proceeding, a tenant can assert that there is no certificate of occupancy for the building and therefore, pursuant to MDL 301 and 302, they are not required to pay rent. The Loft Law provides an exception to such a defense, on the condition that the owner is in compliance with the above code compliance deadlines. If an owner is in compliance with the Loft Law code compliance deadlines, the owner can commence a non-payment proceeding against an IMD tenant in Landlord-Tenant court, or an action for ejectment in Supreme Court. If the owner is not in compliance and the tenants are withholding rent, then the owner will be unable to collect the rent. If you have issues arising from ownership of an IMD building, counsel should be consulted. Joseph Burden (jburden@bbwg.com) is a partner and Lisa Gallaudet (lgallaudet@bbwg.com) is an associate of the firm. They specialize in Loft Law matters. The Current Code Compliance Deadlines Were Not Extended Despite the fact that most of the compliance deadlines expired prior to date, the Loft Board regulations were promulgated (making it impossible for most building owners to be in compliance at the time of registration or upon a determination of a coverage application), the State Legislature did not extend the current code compliance deadlines. Applications for an Extension of Time to Comply with The Code Compliance Deadlines If an owner is unable to meet the code compliance deadline, it may file an application with the Loft Board for more time to comply. The application must be filed prior to the expiration of the deadline. The Loft Board will grant an extension of the code compliance deadlines in MDL 284(1) (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) or (vi) only where an owner has demonstrated that it has met the statutory standards for such an extension, namely, that the necessity for the extension arises from conditions or circumstances beyond the owner s control, and that the owner has made good faith efforts to meet the code compliance timetable requirements. 4 5

LITIGATION UPDATE COMMERCIAL BROKER WINS COMMISSION DISPUTE AGAINST BUYER TRANSACTIONAL UPDATE CONVERSION OF HDFC S IN LIGHT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MEMO By David R. Brand In New York s competitive commercial real estate market, quickly connecting sellers & interested buyers is often the key to brokering a successful deal. Brokers rely on keeping in touch with clients - both new and old - and being at the ready in the event a client wants to either sell or purchase a piece of valuable New York City s real estate. Such was the case for a commercial broker who came to BBWG for assistance over a commission dispute. In July 2011, after canvasing the East Village for possible real estate coming to the market, the broker connected with an owner looking to sell a five (5) story walkup containing ten (10) residential units. The owner wanted the broker to find a buyer that would (a) purchase the building for $4.5 million, and (b) pay the broker s commission. Since the subject property had not yet hit the open market, but rather, was an off-market listing, the broker reached out to a buyer who he knew was active in the East Village. The buyer confirmed that he was not working on any deals in the East Village and was very interested in learning more about the available property. Before providing the buyer with any information about the building (i. e. rent roll, financials, street address), the broker required the buyer sign a confidentiality, representation and commission agreement (the Agreement ) with the broker. The reason for such a requirement was twofold: to maintain the confidentiality of the deal, two to ensure that the buyer was legally bound to use the brokerage service of the broker. The Agreement would memorialize that the broker was the individual who brought the buyer the deal, and, as such, the buyer would pay the broker his commission. The buyer signed the retainer without any objection and the broker then attempted to negotiate a deal between the buyer and owner. Though the asking price for the building was $4.5 million, the buyer did not make an offer above $3.5 million. After a few rounds of back and forth between buyer and owner via the broker, the parties were unable to come to an agreement and negotiations broke off. After months of silence between buyer and broker, the broker was reviewing listings of recent sales in the East Village when he saw that the subject building was, in fact, sold by the owner to the buyer, but brokered by another broker. The broker contacted the buyer about the sale and pointed out their Agreement and requested payment of his commission. The buyer declined to pay the commission arguing he used a different broker for the purchase despite the terms of the Agreement. As a result, the broker had no choice but to sue the buyer in order to recover his commission. BBWG filed a complaint in Supreme Court, New York County against the buyer alleging breach of contract and sought recovery of the commission, interest and attorneys fees. The Agreement made clear that the buyer was to be solely represented by the broker and that buyer would be liable for the broker s commission. By failing to utilize the broker s service, the Supreme Court found that the buyer was in breach of the Agreement and awarded the broker summary judgment as well as recovery of the commission, attorneys fees, and interest. David R. Brand is an associate in the firm s Litigation Department. He can be reached at dbrand@bbwg.com or 212-867-4466, ext. 386. By Daniel T. Altman and Akansha Mishra In 1971, the New York State legislature created The New York City Housing Development Corporation ( HDC ) as a supplementary and alternative means of supplying financing for affordable housing that was independent from the City s capital budget. Today, the HDC concentrates on developing and preserving a variety of housing, ranging from large to small and rental and home ownership. Housing Development Fund Corporations ( HDFC s ) are a form of cooperative housing created for low-income New Yorkers pursuant to the mission of the HDC. Typically, to qualify for HDFC ownership, a person s income must be below stated strict limits. However, due to the consistent appreciation of New York City real estate since the HDC was created, HDFC owners often seek ways to enjoy such appreciation despite the income restrictions typically faced by HDFC owners. As a result of the rising real estate market, several HDFC s formed under the Private Housing Finance Law ( PHFL ) and the Business Corporation Law ( BCL ) have inquired as to whether they can convert their cooperative apartments to marketrate cooperative apartments. This could potentially be accomplished either by amending the HDFC s certificate of incorporation or by transferring and/or selling the entire building owned by the HDFC. However, the ability to convert HDFC s to market rate cooperatives suffered a major setback from a memorandum issued by the New York State Attorney General s Office Real Estate Finance Bureau on July 16, 2015; the memo can be accessed at http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/ default/files/pdfs/bureaus/real_estate_ finance/effective-memos/7.16.2015_ Guidance_on_HDFC_Seeking_to_ Transfer_or_Sell_Property.pdf. As discussed in the memo, the PHFL places various restrictions on HDFC s, rendering it difficult for an HDFC to convert to market-rate cooperative or condominium housing. Essentially, the PHFL does not allow the reconstitution of an HDFC given that HDFC s are organized exclusively to provide housing for persons of low income, as explicitly stated on all certificates of incorporation belonging to HDFC s. As a result of this unequivocal restriction, HDFC s seeking to convert would have to sell and dissolve the HDFC or transfer its real property to a non-hdfc entity that does not have the sole corporate purpose required by the PHFL. Moreover, the proceeds of any sale, like all other assets of the HDFC, must be used exclusively for the corporate purpose of developing housing for persons of low income, as the statute explicitly prohibits any net income or earnings of the corporation to inure to the benefit or profit of any private individual, firm, corporation, or association. The board of an HDFC, in conjunction with the supervising agency, must ensure that any sale proceeds must be distributed in accordance with the requirements of the PHFL. If any proposed sale involves distributing sale proceeds to an HDFC s shareholders, such distribution would be prohibited by law. While an HDFC could theoretically convert by obtaining explicit written consent from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development, or the New York State DHCR, the Attorney General s memo shuts that door by making clear that neither HPD nor DHCR will consent to such an amendment, given that doing so would remove the statutorily required corporate purpose of developing a housing project for low income persons. In light of the Attorney General s memo, it is now highly doubtful that HDFC s can evade the restrictions under which they were formed. To further discuss the AG s recent memorandum on this subject, please contact Dan Altman. This article was authored by Akansha Mishra, a summer associate at the firm, and Daniel Altman (daltman@bbwg.com), head of the Firm s Transactional Department.nneidich@bbwg.com. 6 7

CO-OP CONDO CORNER By Aaron Shmulewitz Aaron Shmulewitz heads the Firm s co-op/condo practice, consisting of more than 300 co-op and condo boards throughout the City, as well as sponsors of condominium conversions, and numerous purchasers and sellers of co-op and condo apartments, buildings, residences and other properties. If you would like to discuss any of the cases in this article or other related matter, you can reach Aaron at 212-867-4466 or (ashmulewitz@bbwg.com). CO-OP AND BOARD CANNOT BE SUED FOR CANCELLING PROPOSED SALE OF COMMON HALLWAY SPACE AFTER BIDS SUBMITTED Newman v. 911 Alwyn Owners Corp. Supreme Court, New York County COMMENT The Board s decision was held protected by the business judgment rule, since no bid was ever accepted, so no contract was ever formed. CONDO LIEN SUBORDINATE TO PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CONSOLIDATION OF TWO MORTGAGES Plotch v. US Bank National Association Appellate Division, 2nd Department COMMENT The Court rejected the creative argument by the purchaser that the condo lien trumped the previously-filed second mortgage. WILLFULLY EXAGGERATED MECHANICS LIENS SHOULD BE DISMISSED LMF-RS Contracting, Inc. v. Kaljic Appellate Division, 1st Department SHAREHOLDER SUIT AGAINST CO-OP BOARD FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR FAILURE TO REMEDIATE MOLD AND FIX LEAKS, DISMISSED UNDER BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE Cohen v. Kings Point Tenant Corporation Appellate Division, 2nd Department COMMENT The shareholder had also alleged religious discrimination, which was also dismissed. CONDO SPONSOR THAT WON ILSA CANCELLATIONS SUIT ENTITLING IT TO KEEP PURCHASERS DEPOSITS IS ENTITLED TO $60,000 IN ATTORNEYS FEES FROM PURCHASERS, BUT MUST PAY PURCHASERS $15,000 INTEREST THAT ACCRUED ON THEIR DEPOSITS Tackney v. WB Imico Lexington Fee, LLC U.S. District Court, SDNY PURCHASER OF APARTMENTS SOLD AT FORECLOSURE BY CO-OP CANNOT RECOVER DEPOSIT BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED FINANCIAL WEAKNESS OF CO-OP Moutopoulis v. 2075-2081 Wallace Avenue Owners Corp. Civil Court, Bronx County COMMENT The Court based its holding on the purchaser s failure to conduct due diligence before signing the contract. CO-OP S DECISION ON SHAREHOLDER ALTERATIONS APPLICATION MUST BE REASONABLE; UNREASONABLE DECLINATION IS NOT PROTECTED BY BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, AND BOARD CAN BE SUED Silver v. Murray House Owners Corp. Appellate Division, 1st Department COMMENT The Court relied on the proprietary lease provision that required Board consent for alterations decisions to not be unreasonably withheld. CO-OP S DECISION TO DISCARD SHAREHOLDER PROPERTY IN STORAGE ROOM FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PROJECT PROTECTED UNDER BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE Jacobs v. Grant Appellate Division, 2nd Department COMMENT The Court emphasized that the co-op had given the shareholder ample notice of the planned clean-out, and that the asbestos project was in furtherance of all shareholders interests. CO-OP BUYER CANNOT BE FORCED TO CLOSE IF UNRESOLVED ISSUES REMAIN BETWEEN SELLER AND CO-OP OVER EXCLUSIVITY OF ROOF ACCESS Pastor v. DeGaetano Appellate Division, 1st Department COMMENT In what is an increasingly hot issue in co-ops, the Court held that a purchaser should be assured of getting unencumbered use and occupancy rights. CONDO CANNOT COLLECT LATE FEES ON ARREARS IF BYLAWS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR IT Board of Managers of The Netherlands Condominium v. Trencher Appellate Division, 1st Department COMMENT Boards are bound by their governing documents. CONDO BOARD CAN BRING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS SUIT AGAINST BANK THAT FORECLOSED ON SPONSOR AND COMPLETED CONDO OFFERING Board of Managers of 136 St. Marks Place Condominium v. St. Marks Place Condominiums II, LLC Appellate Division, 2nd Department CO-OP BARRED FROM EVICTING NON-SHAREHOLDER RESIDENTS, BASED ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 860 Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Ender Civil Court, Landlord & Tenant Part, New York County COMMENT The shareholder had never lived in the apartment since purchasing it 18 years earlier; the co-occupancy provision had been adopted after such occupancy began. The Court held that the occupancy was not a continuing wrong that disturbed other residents, and that the statute of limitations trumped the standard no-waiver clause in the proprietary lease. UNPAID CO-OP SUBLETTING FEE CANNOT FORM BASIS FOR NON-PAYMENT PROCEEDING, SINCE NOT CONSIDERED RENT 33 Fifth Avenue Owners Corp. v. 33 Fifth Endo, LLC Appellate Term, 1st Department SPONSOR ARCHITECT NOT LIABLE FOR FRAUD TO CONDO BASED ON ARCHITECT S REPORT IN OFFERING PLAN Board of Managers of 147 Waverly Place Condominium v. KMG Waverly, LLC Appellate Division, 1st Department COMMENT The Court held that the report could not form the basis for fraud, since it was a mere projection of what the gut renovated building would be like, not an actual description of an existing building. CO-OP S REJECTION OF TRANSFER TO INTESTATE DECEDENT S BROTHER VALID UNDER BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE Estate of Rubenstein v. Berkeley Cooperative Towers Section II Corp. Supreme Court, Queens County COMMENT In what appears to be a case of ill-advised structuring of the proposed transfer based on the operative facts, the Court held that an intestate s interest should go to his parent, not brother, under intestacy laws, and that the co-op s governing documents would probably have required consent for a transfer to the decedent s mother. CONDO BOARD HAS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO TERRACE FOR BUILDING REPAIR PURPOSES; DECK INSTALLED ILLEGALLY BY UNIT OWNER MUST BE REMOVED; BOARD ENTITLED TO LEGAL FEES Richstone v. Board of Managers of Leighton House Condominium Supreme Court, New York County COMMENT This was a rare grand-slam victory for a Board, including on reargument. BBWG represented this Board in this action. 8 9

L I T I G AT I O N U P DAT E RIGHT OF RESCISSION UNDER THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT By Noelle Picone The Appellate Term, Fi r s t D e p a r t m e nt _ recently issued a decision t h at m a ke s clear that that when drafting a probationary stipulation, the devil is in the details. If the probationary stipulation does not specifically provide for the entry of a judgment in the event of a breach, the owner will not be entitled to one. Gloria Homes Apartments LP v. Wilson was a nuisance proceeding, which the parties settled by entering into a probationary stipulation. Under the probationary stipulation, the tenant agreed to refrain from permitting any loud sounds alleged by the landlord in the notice of termination. Entering into such a stipulation is a common way to settle a nuisance proceeding. This particular probationary stipulation provided that in the event of a default, landlord may restore for immediate hearing on the sole issue of violation of this stipulation. The landlord subsequently restored the proceeding pursuant to this provision and a hearing was heard was held on the issue of whether or not the tenant has breached the probationary stipulation and what relief would be appropriate. After the hearing, the Housing Court determined that the tenant repeatedly breached the stipulation and that the landlord was entitled to a judgment of possession. The Appellate Term reversed, holding that the Housing Court s finding that the landlord was entitled to a judgment of possession could not NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS be upheld because the probationary stipulation did not provide for the entry of a judgment in the event of a breach. Absent specific language authorizing the entry of a judgment, there was no legal basis identif ied at the hearing, the Appellate Term concluded, for reading into the stipulation the ultimate remedy of an eviction. T his decision ma kes clea r t hat t he details of a probationary stipulation are absolutely crucial. Anytime a landlord settles a nuisance proceeding by entering into a probationary stipulation, it must include specif ic language entitling the landlord to the entry of judgment of possession in the event of default. Noelle Picone (npicone@bbwg.com) is a partner in BBWG s Litigation Department. Sherwin Belkin, a partner in the Firm s Appeals and Administrative Departments, was quoted numerous times in connection with the rent freeze imposed by the Rent Guidelines Board, and the 2015 Rent Law passed by the State Legislature, including in: Real Estate Weekly on-line edition (www.rew-online.com) on June 17 and 24 and July 1 and 29; www.bisnow.com on June 24; and Citybizlist (www.citybizlist.com) on June 30 and July 23. Mr. Belkin s representation of a building owner in a dispute over the applicability of 421-g real estate tax benefits to a downtown building was also featured in Downtown Express (www.downtownexpress.com) on July 2. Mr. Belkin was also profiled in The Real Deal (www.therealdeal.com) on August 1, and quoted in an article entitled Attorney Sees Free-Speech Issue in Tenant Bills in Capital New York (www.capitalnewyork.com) on August 18. Jeffrey L. Goldman, co-head of the firm s Litigation Department, was quoted or mentioned numerous times in connection with BBWG s representation of long-time client Donald Trump in his breach of contract lawsuit against Univision, and in ongoing litigation involving Trump University, including in Law 360 on July 1, The Daily News (www.nydailynews.com), The New York Post (www.pagesix.com), and Billboard (www.billboard.com) on July 7 and August 30. Mr. Goldman was also quoted in an article entitled How Trump Could Turn the Presidency Into a Litigation Circus (www.yahoo.com) on August 31. Finally, Mr. Goldman was also quoted in an article in The Daily News on August 24, criticizing the role of the Tenant Protection Unit in harassment claims asserted by tenants against their landlord. Martin Meltzer, head of BBWG s non-payment practice group, was appointed to the New York City Bar Association s Housing Court Committee for a three-year term. Matthew Brett, a partner in the Firm s Litigation Department, was quoted numerous times in connection with flaws in the 2015 Rent Law, including in: Citybizlist (www. citybizlist.com) on July 15, The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) on July 16, and The Real Deal (www.therealdeal.com) on July 17. On September 10, 2015, Mr. Brett was a panelist at CHIP s seminar Decoding the Rent Act of 2015. Mr. Brett lectured about the fate of deregulation under the new law and the impact of Altman v. 285 West Fourth LLC. Craig Gambardella, an associate in the firm s Litigation Department, gave a seminar on rent regulation to more than 50 brokers at Cushman & Wakefield on June 25. 10 10 11

Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 www.bbwg.com New York Office 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel 212.867.4466 Fax 212.867.0709 Connecticut Office 495 Post Road East, 2nd Floor Westport, CT 06880 Tel 203.227.1534 Fax 203.227.6044 Please Note: This newsletter is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as providing legal advice. This newsletter provides only a brief summary of complex legal issues. The applicability of any or all of the issues described in this newsletter is dependent upon your particular facts and circumstances. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Accordingly, prior to attempting to utilize or implement any of the suggestions provided in this newsletter, you should consult with your attorney. This newsletter is considered Attorney Advertising under New York State court rules. 12