logo CityLand
      • Home
      • About CityLand
      • CityLand Sponsors
      • Filings & Decisions
      • Commentary
      • Archive
      • Resources
      • CityLaw
      • Current Issue

    Search results for "Civil Penalties"

    Recalcitrant owner of Landmark agrees to $1.1M fine

    Court Decisions  •  Landmarks Preservation Commission  •  Clinton, Manhattan
    Clinton, Manhattan

    LPC filed action to compel owner’s repair of landmarked building. After receiving no response to a series of notices regarding the structural instability and deteriorating facade of the landmarked Windermere building at 400 West 57th Street, Landmarks filed suit to compel Toa Construction to repair its building. The action also sought $5,000 in daily civil penalties.

    Two months later, a lower court ordered Toa to give Landmarks access to the building to complete a conditions report. 5 CityLand 80 (June 15, 2008). Five orders followed from the court, including orders that required Toa to perform shoring, bracing, and repair work. (more…)

    Tags : 400 West 57th Street, Toa Construction, Windermere Properties LLC
    Date: 06/15/2009
    Leave a Comment

    Court intervenes to save landmark

    Court Decisions  •  Affirmative Litigation  •  Hell’s Kitchen, Manhattan

    Image: LPC.

    State Supreme Court issues preliminary injunction against owner of 19th century landmark building. In 2005, Landmarks designated the Queen Anne-style Windermere Apartments, comprised of three buildings located on West 57th Street and Ninth Avenue. In September 2007, Landmarks noted that the historical and structural integrity of the buildings was at risk of being permanently compromised unless the owner, Toa Construction, took immediate action. In October 2007, Landmarks Chair Robert B. Tierney issued Toa an order to bring the Windermere to a state of good repair or risk daily fines, criminal penalties, and legal action. When Toa failed to provide Landmarks with a plan to make substantial repairs, Landmarks filed suit seeking civil penalties, amounting to $5,000 a day, and an order to compel Toa to repair and restore the building as required under the Landmarks Law. 5 CityLand 47 (Apr. 15, 2008).

    On May 8, 2008, State Supreme Court Judge Karen Smith issued an order against Toa to halt the deterioration of the Windermere. Under the order, Toa must grant Landmarks access to the Windermere so that Landmarks can draft a report on the buildings’ condition, the costs of which shall be borne by Toa. Within 30 days of the conditions report, Toa must submit a complete application and seek permits from the New York City Department of Buildings and Landmarks for the repair and restoration of the Windermere. Within 120 days of the receipt of such permits, Toa must complete its restoration unless it seeks an extension. (more…)

    Tags : City of New York v. Toa Construction Co., Index No. 08-400584
    Date: 06/15/2008
    Leave a Comment

    City sues to save landmarked apt. bldg.

    Court Decisions  •  Affirmative Litigation  •  Clinton, Manhattan

    Lawsuit intended to keep 19th century landmark from falling into a state of disrepair. In 2005, Landmarks designated the Windermere Apartments, three buildings located on West 57th Street and Ninth Avenue, in order to preserve its Queen Anne-style architecture and to recognize its storied history as a residence for young, self-supporting women entering the workforce in the mid-1800s. The owners claimed that the buildings were in an “unsafe condition” and did not warrant designation; preservation groups claimed that they could be restored despite their many years of neglect. Landmarks agreed with the preservationists and voted to designate the building.

    Subsequent to designation, Landmarks sent a series of notices to Toa Construction, the owners of the Windermere, stating that it was required to ensure the buildings were kept in a state of good repair as per the Landmarks Law. Toa failed to provide Landmarks with a restoration plan in response to any of Landmarks’ notices. (more…)

    Tags : Toa Construction, Windermere Apartments
    Date: 04/15/2008
    Leave a Comment

    Homeowners win damages over C of O delay

    Court Decisions  •  Department of Buildings  •  West New Brighton, Staten Island

    Builder still had not produced a C of O after seven years. Two families separately contracted with Giovanni Culotta to build semi-attached homes at 243 and 245 Elm Street in Staten Island. In May 1998, both families closed and received temporary certificates of occupancy with an understanding that Culotta would later provide a final certificate. Buildings’ records indicate the last temporary certificates of occupancy expired in 1999. Subsequently, Buildings issued violations to the families for occupying their homes illegally and, after a hearing at the Environmental Control Board, both families paid the imposed penalties.

    In 2002, the families sued Culotta for breach of contract, claiming he had failed to provide final certificates of occupancy. At trial, Culotta admitted that after seven years he still had not delivered final certificates, claiming his delay was due to his very busy schedule. (more…)

    Tags : 243 Elm Street, 245 Elm Street, Washington v. Culotta
    Date: 09/15/2005
    Leave a Comment

    Owner ordered to restore and maintain landmark

    Court Decisions  •  Landmarks Preservation Commission  •  East Village, Manhattan

    Owner of Skidmore House allowed it to fall into state of disrepair. Skidmore House, a 159-yearold Greek revival residence located at 37 East 4th Street, was designated as an individual landmark in 1970. Since acquiring Skidmore House in 1988, the owner, 10-12 Cooper Square, Inc., neglected to maintain it and ignored several requests by Landmarks to repair it. After the roof collapsed in 2002, Landmarks sued the owner to return the landmark to a state of good repair as required by the Administrative Code. Landmarks wanted the owner to make the exterior of the building watertight to prevent deterioration and maintain the interior and the exterior architectural ornamentation. The owner claimed that the building was in good repair, that Landmarks’ interpretation of good repair was unreasonable and, although Landmarks presented minutes from Skidmore House’s August 18, 1970 designation hearing, that the building was not a designated landmark.

    Justice Walter Tolub first ruled that Skidmore House was duly designated, finding that, although Landmarks failed to notice the designation vote in the City Record, the owner did not provide sufficient evidence of irregular conduct by Landmarks to diminish the presumption that officials will complete and comply with their legal duty. (more…)

    Tags : 10-12 Cooper Square inc., 37 East 4th Street, City of New York v. 10-12 Cooper Sq., Skidmore House
    Date: 02/15/2005
    Leave a Comment
    1. Pages:
    2. «
    3. 1
    4. 2
    5. 3
    6. 4
    7. 5
    8. 6
    9. 7
    10. 8
    11. »

    Subscribe To Free Alerts

    In a Reader

    Desktop Reader Bloglines Google Live Netvibes Newsgator Yahoo! What's This?

    Follow Us on Social Media

    twitterfacebook

    Search

    Search by Category

      City Council
      CityLaw
      City Planning Commission
      Board of Standards & Appeals
      Landmarks Preservation Commission
      Economic Development Corporation
      Housing Preservation & Development
      Administrative Decisions
      Court Decisions
      Filings and Decisions
      CityLand Profiles

    Search by Date

    © 1997-2010 New York Law School | 185 West Broadway, New York, NY 10013 | 212.431.2100 | Privacy | Terms | Code of Conduct | DMCA | Policies
     

    Loading Comments...