161 Stationery Inc., located at 90 East 161st Street in the Bronx. Image Credit: Google Maps.
161 Stationery Inc., a prior violator, sold a single cigar for a price below City-required minimum. On October 21, 2017, Awad Ahmad, N., an employee of 161 Stationery Inc., located at 90 East 161st Street in the Bronx, was on the phone and helping other customers when an inspector from the Department of Consumer Affairs entered the store. The inspector placed $2.00 on the counter to purchase a cigar, and Awad Ahmad, N. sold the inspector a single Entourage Palma cigar for $1.50. (read more…)
Image Credit: NYCourts.gov
The Department of Consumer affairs charged a real estate broker with failing to post a sign alerting tenants of their rights. Arash Real Estate & Management Co is a residential and real estate broker located in Queens. In January 2013 the Department of Consumer Affairs charged Arash with violating the City Administrative Code by failing to post signs advising tenants of their rights to one free tenant screening report annually from each consumer reporting agency. Tenant screening reports are used primarily by residential landlords and property managers to assess the likelihood that a tenant will fulfill the terms of the lease or rental agreement. The signs alert tenants to their right to dispute inaccurate information. (read more…)
The owners of Pete’s Tavern won the right to continue operating a sidewalk cafe. Image credit: Marina Chetner
Landlord was required by lease to consent to tenant’s operation of a sidewalk café, absent a good-faith basis. DMF Gramercy Enterprises, Inc. has operated Pete’s Tavern, a sidewalk café at 129 East 18th Street in Gramercy, Manhattan, and claims to be the longest continuously-operating bar and restaurant in New York City. DMF Gramercy has operated Pete’s since 1964 when it entered into a lease with the building’s then-owner. The current owner is the Lillian Troy 1999 Trust. To operate the café, DMF Gramercy requires a license from the Department of Consumer Affairs, to which the Trust and their predecessors consented over the years. On March 7, 2012 the Lillian Troy 1999 Trust issued a letter to DCA indicating it would not consent to a renewed sidewalk café license.
(read more…)
625-space garage had been operating over capacity since approximately 2003. On July 1, 2009, the City Planning Commission approved 111 Eighth Avenue Parking LLC’s application for a special permit allowing it to continue to operate a 625-space garage on the ground floor and cellar of an office building located between West 15th and 16th Streets, and Eighth and Ninth Avenues in Chelsea. The applicant began operating the 126,677 sq.ft. garage in 1999. It reached its current 625-space capacity a few years later, exceeding the 276 spaces permitted by the building’s Certificate of Occupancy.
At the Commission’s hearing, a representative for the garage apologized for its delay in rectifying the overcapacity, claiming that it had been unfamiliar with the application process for a special permit. Another representative stated that the garage had been consulting with the community and, based on community input, agreed to provide bicycle parking and storage at the garage. (read more…)
Avella criticizes DCA for sloppy review of questionable application. Council Member Tony Avella faulted the Department of Consumer Affairs and argued for action against the architect who filed inaccurate plans in Qdoba Mexican Grill’s application for an unenclosed sidewalk cafe at 216 Eighth Avenue in Chelsea. Qdoba had previously filed a petition to withdraw its application due to Council’s concerns.
Avella explained, at the August 12th hearing before the Council’s Subcommittee on Zoning & Franchises, that when Council’s staff inspected Qdoba’s Chelsea restaurant, they found that the plans so greatly misrepresented what was actually at the site that staff called it “the worst application they had seen in 18 years.”
Avella asked Council Speaker Christine Quinn to file a complaint with the State against Qdoba’s architect since the site was in her district. He also added that the architect had “put their license on the line” by signing and stamping inaccurate plans. Avella concluded that it should not be Council’s responsibility to review the accuracy of applications; rather, the onus should be on the reviewing agency, the Department of Consumer Affairs, who in Avella’s view, did not sufficiently review the application. (read more…)
