May 06, 2009 | New York Law Journal
Owner Occupancy Notice Must State Facts, Panel SaysWarren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, review the recent First Department case of Hirsch v. Stewart, where a building owner unsuccessfully attempted to evict a rent-stabilized tenant after serving a barebones notice of non-renewal that stated only that the owner sought to recover possession of the apartment for his own use without including his reasons - a desire to live closer to work - establishing good faith.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
8 minute read
April 30, 2002 | New York Law Journal
StabilizationIn Gioia v. New York State Div. of Housing & Community Renewal , DHCR beat back an omnibus attack on a host of DHCR amendments relating to rent stabilization outside of New York City. The April 15, 2002 decision may well impact on a similar challenge, pending in Supreme Court Kings County, to recent amendments to New York City`s Rent Stabilization Code.
By Warren A. Estis And Jeffrey Turkel
10 minute read
September 07, 2011 | New York Law Journal
The 'Gersten' Ruling: Some Clarification Post-'Roberts'Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel, partners at Rosenberg & Estis, analyze Gersten v. 56 7th Ave LLC, where the First Department addressed some of the issues that Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. left unresolved, including retroactivity, statute of limitations, and the effect of final and binding DHCR orders of deregulation that were issued pre-Roberts.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
8 minute read
March 03, 2010 | New York Law Journal
Departments Divide Over Loft Law RulingWarren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, analyze a case where the Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that even where a loft unit does not fall under the Loft Law, the unit will still be subject to rent stabilization under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
8 minute read
May 04, 2011 | New York Law Journal
Court Confirms Board Authority to Increase RentsWarren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel, partners at Rosenberg & Estis, review the Court of Appeals recent ruling that the New York City Rent Guidelines Board is authorized to impose discrete, minimum rent increases on certain low-rent rent stabilized apartments that have been continuously occupied for many years.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
8 minute read
March 07, 2007 | New York Law Journal
Owner-Recovered UnitsWarren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel, partners at Rosenberg Estis, review the First Department's recent ruling that the Rent Stabilization Law and the Rent Stabilization Code impose no limit on the number of apartments an individual owner can recover for purposes of owner use.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
9 minute read
July 07, 2004 | New York Law Journal
Loft LawPartners Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel of Rosenberg & Estis review a recent New York Court of Appeals decision which declined to extend rent stabilization status to illegal loft units.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
8 minute read
September 01, 2004 | New York Law Journal
Rent StabilizationWarren A. Estis, a founding partner, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner, at Rosenberg & Estis, explore the 51-year history of horizontal multiple dwellings.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
9 minute read
July 07, 2010 | New York Law Journal
Courts Differ on Timing Issues In Owner-Occupancy CasesIn their Rent Regulation column, Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and Jeffrey Turkel, a partner at the firm, write that two recent cases establish that courts disagree as to the legality - and the logistics - of an owner's attempt to recover a significant number of rent-stabilized apartments on owner occupancy grounds.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
9 minute read
January 07, 2009 | New York Law Journal
Rulings Hand Big Victory To Conversion SponsorsWarren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel, partners at Rosenberg & Estis, review two recent decisions from the Appellate Term, First Department, that held that unregulated tenants were not entitled to purchase their units, or remain in occupancy, where the sponsor/landlord had already commenced lease expiration holdover proceedings against them prior to the date the attorney general had accepted condominium offering plans for filing.
By Warren A. Estis and Jeffrey Turkel
9 minute read
Trending Stories