NEXT

Scott E Mollen

Scott E Mollen

February 05, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “245 East 30th Street v. Alarcon,” where a rent-controlled apartment was given back to the landlord after it was found that it was not the tenant's primary residence; and “Freeman v. City of N.Y.” where a claim based on an implied contract for the purchase of city-owned properties was dismissed.

By Scott E. Mollen

15 minute read

January 29, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses the land use case “Matter of Peyton v. NYC Bd. of Standards and Appeals,” where the court held that an apartment tower's roof garden could not be included in the open space ratio mandate embodied in the NYC zoning resolution.

By Scott E. Mollen

19 minute read

January 22, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “225 Huguenot St. Corp. v. Rwechungura,” and “de Socio v. 136 E. 56th St. Owners.”

By Scott E. Mollen

15 minute read

January 15, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “Vizel v. Vitale,” where a lease option to renew was found to be missing an essential element and therefore was held void and unenforceable; and “ABJ Milano LLC v. Howell,” where the respondent was determined to be a rent-stabilized tenant, not a licensee.

By Scott E. Mollen

14 minute read

January 08, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses three landlord-tenant cases: 'U.S. v. 111 E. 88th Partners,' involving an apartment building's no-dog rule where the landlord's attorney was seen as a co-decisionmaker as to permission for the tenant to have a support dog thus waving the privilege;  'Cashew Holdings v. Thorpe-Poyser,' where the court held the landlord may not collect rent when the building lacked a certificate of occupancy, and 'WFCC Realty v. Lin,' where it was held that landlords must still establish substantial rehabilitation by adequate documentation even though such requirements were relaxed under DHCR's Operational Bulletin 95-2.

By Scott E. Mollen

13 minute read

December 31, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “OneWest Bank N.A. v. FMCDH Realty,” where the court held a reverse mortgage's CAA was never a negotiable instrument and the bank was not a holder in due course.

By Scott E. Mollen

7 minute read

December 24, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “Trust v. Roskell,” where the court found issues of fact to exist as to whether property owners have a matured prescriptive easement.

By Scott E. Mollen

9 minute read

December 18, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “Board of Managers of 184 Thompson Street Condominium v. 184 Thompson Street Owner,” a condominium conversion case involving the adequacy of a reserve fund; and “Matter of Partman v. NYSDHCR,” where the tenant was granted reversal of DHCR's decision granting owner MCI rent increases.

By Scott E. Mollen

17 minute read

December 11, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “Matter of Real Estate Bd. of N.Y. v. City of New York,” where the court upheld NY Local law No. 50 which limits conversions of some Manhattan hotels, and “560-568 Audubon Tenants Ass'n v. 560-568 Audubon Realty,” where the court found DHCR better suited to resolve overcharge rent regulation claims.

By Scott E. Mollen

12 minute read

December 04, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Realty Law Digest

Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein, discusses “Via Port New York v. Sears,” where the court held that Sears did not breach its lease terms or contract when it closed its mall store; and “Forest Enter. Mgmt. Inc. v. The county of Warren,” an eminent domain action, where the county incurred an independent obligation to pay just compensation.

By Scott E. Mollen

13 minute read