New York Real Estate Lawyers Blog

August 4, 2014

Elmo (and others) in Times Square: The Legal Issues

In the news are stories concerning costumed characters in Times Square. For those who have not visited the center of New York City lately, individuals dressed up as Elmo, Super Mario, and Spider-Man, and others have been congregating in Times Square. They entertain tourists, and many people like to have their pictures taken with them. Unfortunately, some of these “characters” have become aggressive, demanding money from tourists for having their photos taken, and recently, “Spider-Man” has been arrested for an altercation with a New York City police officer.

New York City officials are now considering their options regarding licensing these individuals and imposing other legal restrictions on them. Legally, there are several issues in play. The right of any individual to congregate in a public place and to ask others for money may be protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of assembly from governmental restriction. Of course, there may be reasonable limitations placed on such freedoms, especially where it may interfere with the safety of others. Previous court decisions in New York have ruled that the right to ask others for money in a public place constitutes freedom of speech and cannot be considered criminal behavior.

Another legal issue is the whether the right to appear in public as certain characters from fiction is an infringement upon the owners of those characters. The legal rights to both the names and appearances of many of the characters appearing in Times Square, such as Elmo and Spider-Man, are owned by large corporations. The costumes, names, and persona of these characters are protected by legal trademarks. This means that no one can generally use these characters for commercial purposes without the consent of the trademark holder. Such consent usually also involves payment of royalties to the trademark owner.

July 28, 2014

Keeping Landlord-Tenant Disputes Under Control

By Weiss & Weiss

Recently in the news is the rather gruesome story of a woman who was murdered and dismembered. Her body parts were discovered in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Her neighbor was arrested for her murder and is being held without bail. According to the news story, the root of the conflict between the two women appears to have been a landlord-tenant dispute.

The accused murderer, Leah Cuevas, was pretending to be the landlord of the building in which the two women lived, after the actual owner passed away. Ms. Cuevas then attempted to collect the rent from the building’s tenants, and when fellow tenant Chinelle LaToya Thompson Browne refused to pay, she was allegedly murdered by Ms. Cuevas. Of course, most landlord-tenant conflicts do not end in this manner. This blog post will attempt to discuss the legal issues involved, although, as our firm does not generally practice criminal law, we will leave the more graphic issues to the criminal courts.

Often, a situation can arise where a person claims to be the owner and/or landlord of a house or apartment building and demands rent from the tenants. This can happen where the original landlord passes away without a will, or where the building is being foreclosed by a lender. There may be occurrences where a landlord cannot meet the carrying charges on a building, such as the mortgage and utilities, and simply “walks away” from their ownership. If the ownership is in a corporate name, the landlord may not be personally liable for the building’s debts, and does not dispute any foreclosure proceeding that may occur.

July 21, 2014

Access to Building Services in Rental Units in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent news story regarding affordable housing in New York may be of interest to readers of our blog. New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) approved a separate entrance in a proposed new building containing affordable housing units. The building would therefore have two entrances (it is located on a corner lot), one for the luxury units, and one for low-income units that would comprise 55 of the 219 proposed units.

Of course, many people are outraged by this “poor door,” arguing that it imposes a stigma on the low-income renters in the building. Others may argue that separate entrances should be allowed as the price for the builder to include these low-income units, which may not have otherwise been part of the proposed project. Including these low-income units in the project allows the builder to construct an edifice larger than that which would have been allowed if the building only contained luxury units. It also entitles the developer to certain tax breaks for providing “affordable housing” to the residents of New York City.

The issue of whether all residents of communal housing, such as an apartment building, are entitled to share in all of the building’s amenities can create additional legal challenges. A building in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan has an indoor swimming pool, a rare sight in Manhattan. There are several buildings with access to the pool, known as London Terrance Towers and London Terrace Gardens. However, these buildings contain co-op apartments, which are owner-occupied, as well as rent-stabilized units, which are not. Under an expiring agreement, between the landlord of the Gardens buildings and the cooperative corporation, the renters were allowed to use the pool.

July 10, 2014

Buyouts Between Landlords and Tenants in New York

By Weiss & Weiss

A recent article in the New York Times discusses the issue of landlords making cash offers to “buy out” tenants of their rent regulated tenancies. Our firm has handled these situations, representing both landlords and tenants in different transactions regarding such buyouts.

The reason behind such offers is the rent regulation system currently in place in New York City. Many, but not all, apartments in New York are subject to rent regulation. Rent regulation applies to apartments renting below a certain amount, but does not apply to rentals of a condominium or cooperative unit by its owner. Whether an apartment may be subject to rent regulation is a complicated issue and can be the subject of additional legal proceedings, with which our firm also has extensive experience.

Once an apartment is subject to rent regulation, a tenant residing therein has certain legal rights regarding their tenancy. The first right is the amount of the rent paid by the tenant. This amount is determined by an extremely complicated formula, in which the following factors are taken into account: the rent paid by the prior tenant, increased by a “vacancy allowance,” plus increases may be allowed for improvements made by the landlord to the apartment, such as the installation of new appliances, new windows, and so forth. Renewal leases are subject to particular limited on rent increases determined annually by the Rent Guidelines Board.

July 4, 2014

Wishing Our Readers a Happy 4th of July

By Weiss & Weiss

June 19, 2014

Trademarks and the Washington Redskins Decision

By Weiss & Weiss

Recently in the news is a decision by the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board concerning the registration of the trademark for the Washington Redskins football team. Longtime readers of this blog will recall that a prior post explained the difference between copyrights and trademarks. To summarize, a trademark is legal protection for a trade or business name used to identify goods and services in interstate commerce. To obtain such protection, one generally applies to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Washington, D.C. The applicable procedure is one which can be done online. Our attorneys are familiar with the application process and can assist potential applicants.

Once the application is submitted, an examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office will review the proposed trademark. They will check as to whether the proposed mark is “confusingly similar” to any prior registered mark, and may deny the application if it is. Other technical issues may also be raised by the trademark examiner.

If the applicant has an issue with the decision of the trademark examiner, then the trademark examiner’s decision can be appealed to the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Any such appeal would be heard by a panel of three Administrative Trademark Judges. Each Judge will then vote on the appeal, with the majority becoming the decision of the TTAB in a particular case.

May 30, 2014

Our Guide on How to Conduct Cooperative Board of Directors Meetings

By Weiss & Weiss

coop board meeting.jpg In a prior blog post , we described how annual cooperative shareholder meetings should be conducted. Now that the cooperative’s Board of Directors is properly elected and in place, the business of the cooperative should begin with the holding of a meeting of the Board and electing officers. This blog post will describe how to conduct regular Board of Director meetings in a cooperative.

It is not unusual for By-Laws to require a newly elected Board to meet immediately after the annual shareholders meeting, even if such a meeting has not been noticed. Otherwise, By-Laws may require advance notice of the Board meeting. While Board meeting notices usually do not need to specify an agenda, we recommend that an agenda be circulated prior to the meeting so that those in attendance are prepared for the discussion of cooperative business and are not surprised by any of the topics.

At the first Board meeting, it is prudent to elect the officers, such as the President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. The By-Laws will identify those officers to be elected for a particular cooperative as well as their roles. Review of the By-Laws must be made to confirm the quorum (the minimum number required to hold a valid meeting) required for the Board meeting, whether a majority or other percentage of directors. Once it is determined that there is a quorum present at the Board meeting, the By-Laws should be consulted to note voting requirements. Does a mere majority vote or a higher percentage allow for the passage of resolutions discussed? Particular matters, such as enacting additional fees like a flip tax, may require a vote of more than a majority, such as two-thirds. A flip tax is a fee paid to the cooperative at a closing by the seller and may be calculated as a flat amount, a percentage of the sales price, a percentage of the net profit of the sale, or by assigning a particular number of dollars per share owned by the seller. A flip tax is intended to enhance the account balance of the cooperative and share some of the seller’s sales proceeds with the building. Since flip taxes comprise an additional fee, it is not unusual for voting to require more than a majority or for such a matter to be considered by all shareholders, instead of merely the Board.

May 22, 2014

Enjoy Your Vacation Home this Memorial Day Weekend

By Weiss & Weiss

Memorial Day weekend is eagerly anticipated by many of our readers, especially this year after the harsh winter that we endured. Fortunate travelers expect to enjoy their vacation homes this weekend. As you head out for the weekend, we wish to remind you of certain legal issues pertaining to vacation homes.

Some vacation homes were financed by the use of reverse mortgages . Once the borrower dies or does not occupy the home for another reason, the lender may seek to collect the remaining unpaid principal balance, require the home to be sold or foreclose on the property. Since vacation homes are secondary homes, obtaining a mortgage modification, if necessary due to the financial circumstances of the borrower, is not a certainty. We are available to assist our clients in foreclosure defense should it become necessary.

Sometimes a vacation home is inherited by more than one adult child. In this case, maybe not all of the record owners contribute to the expenses of the house or even use the house. Our firm has been engaged in partition actions on behalf of its clients to alleviate this situation.

May 16, 2014

‘Tis the Season for the Annual Meeting

By Weiss & Weiss

May and June of each year tend to be “annual meeting season” for our cooperative and condominium clients. At such meetings, the shareholders of cooperatives and unit owners of condominiums elect their board of directors or board of managers. Those who serve on boards are hard working volunteers, participating on a weekly if not daily basis. Those who attend annual meetings may only attend one meeting a year to question and judge those who participate on their behalf on a constant basis. This blog post will address how to properly conduct annual meetings and why smoothly run annual meetings are important. Although our law firm also conducts annual meetings for condominiums and religious corporations, this post will be limited to cooperative corporation annual meetings.

Why do we have annual meetings? Such meetings are necessary to elect directors at regular intervals, so that the same people do not maintain their posts indefinitely contrary to the will of shareholders. An Offering Plan would have been filed by the sponsor of the cooperative with the New York State Attorney General Real Estate Finance Bureau when the building was converted to cooperative ownership. One of the documents contained in such Offering Plan is the By-Laws. As in any corporation, the By-Laws provide the roadmap for the governance of the corporation. It is common for By-Laws to provide that annual meetings for the election of directors are to be held in a particular month of a year. The cooperative need not hold its meetings in the specific month stated in the By-Laws (who wants to meet in January during a blizzard), it merely needs to hold its meetings at regular intervals each year. The By-Laws specify that the notice of annual meeting is to state that the business to be conducted is to elect directors and to conduct other business specifically identified in the notice, should state the time, date and place of the meeting, and who needs to sign the meeting notice. Our attorneys also pay careful attention to each client’s By-Laws provision regarding the number of days required for the advance notice of the meeting. Usually cooperative By-Laws require that written notice of the annual meeting be delivered at least “x” days but no more than “y” days in advance of the meeting. The By-Laws will also indicate how many directors are to be elected and if there are particular disqualifications (such as a director must also be a shareholder).

Once the meeting commences, the first step is to determine if there is a quorum, the proper number of shares represented for the decisions made at the meeting to be legally valid. The By-Laws identify how many shares constitute a quorum, perhaps a majority of shares issued or a majority of units are represented. Usually, shares can be represented by attending in person or by proxy (the delivery of a signed document instructing how one’s shares are to be voted or who may vote one’s shares on her behalf). It should be noted that certain legal acts or acts as identified by the certificate of incorporation may have a more stringent definition of quorum than the standard director election. As it is inconvenient to adjourn the meeting due to failure of quorum requirements, we encourage our clients to collect as many proxies as possible in case a shareholder cannot attend.

May 2, 2014

New Yorkers Will Always Have Death and Taxes

By Weiss & Weiss

New Yorkers seem to be “taxed to death”, paying the highest average property taxes in the country. We are the only state that charges a tax for the making of a mortgage. The tax burden does not end at death, as New York also has its own estate tax. Governor Andrew Cuomo, seeking re-election this year, has been encouraging the state legislature to reduce these burdens.

Estates may be subject to both federal and state estate taxes. During the past thirteen years, the federal estate tax has been modified. The federal taxable exemption now stands at a generous amount of $5,340,000.00 per person. This generally means that estates that do not exceed this amount are not subject to federal estate taxes. As many people do not have estates that exceed such amount, federal estate tax is not a concern for most families. However, New York State has levied an estate tax on estates exceeding $1,000,000.00 until a revision to the law was passed in April of this year. Since many New Yorkers could easily have assets exceeding $1,000,000.00, considering high property values, many of our residents have been subject to state estate tax.

The revision to New York’s estate tax law now provides that the exemption will immediately rise to $2,062,500.00, so that only estates valued above that amount will be subject to New York state estate taxes. Further, each April, the state estate tax exemption is set to rise by $1,062,500.00, until it reaches $5,250,000.00 in 2017, then the exemption will continue to rise to close to $6,000,000.00 on January 1, 2019. Tax liability will certainly be a “moving target” during the next five years.