Following is a video recording from the highly informative January 22 Air Rights info session. Click “Watch Again” below. [Note: it looks like the video was edited after it was initially posted to cut out some of the introductory stuff.]
Monthly Archives: January 2018
Seward Park Liquors denied license at new location
Former SPC commercial tenant Seward Park Liquors will not be re-opening on Ludlow Street any time soon.
After our Board decided not to renew their long-time lease at 393 Grand Street, Seward Park Liquors announced they would relocate to Ludlow Street this month. But the NY State Liquor Authority website now says that a “disapproval letter” was issued on January 8, 2018, with respect to the store’s application to move their license to the new location.
Our sources tell us that the disapproval was related to recent violations for selling to minors. Those same violations supposedly caused the SLA to deny a license to the would-be replacement tenant for the 393 Grand storefront last fall. We understand the new tenant is appealing the decision.
Referee issues decision on garage lawsuit fees and costs
When the court dismissed the garage lawsuit last summer, the judge ordered that the plaintiffs pay reasonable fees and costs incurred by the co-op in defending the suit. Over the next few months the parties submitted arguments to a referee regarding how much the plaintiffs should have to pay.
On December 22, the referee recommended that the court award the co-op $161,088.72 in fees and costs. We assume the court will adopt this recommendation.
It is not yet clear to us, however, how the amount already paid by one of the five plaintiffs (who settled with the co-op a few months ago for his share of the fees that were accrued at that time) will factor into this, or whether the co-op will receive any discount from our lawyers for the portion of the fees and expenses billed that the referee decided were not “reasonable” (although the lawyers are certain to disagree with that decision).
Regardless, it is highly likely that each of the remaining four plaintiffs is likely to have an extra $40k (give or take) line item on their maintenance bill in the near future, which should serve as a cautionary tale to any other shareholder who is considering suing the co-op without a really solid case.