August 03, 2011 | New York Law Journal
Being a Marlboro Man In Your Own HomeWarren A. Estis and William J. Robbins of Rosenberg & Estis discuss the recent Appellate Term, First Department, decision in Ewen v. Maccherone, which addresses the issue of whether an apartment owner can be sued by a neighbor for secondhand smoke damage.
By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins
15 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
April 07, 2010 | New York Law Journal
Attorney's Fees May Be Awarded Without a Holding on MeritsWarren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and William J. Robbins, a partner at the firm, discuss two recent decisions addressing whether, when a proceeding is disposed of without the court reaching the merits of the case, there is a prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney's fees under Real Property Law §234, and the award of attorney's fees without regard to RPL §234.
By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins
13 minute read
August 05, 2009 | New York Law Journal
Applying Rule, Court Voids Lease Renewal Option ClauseWarren A. Estis and William J. Robbins, partners at Rosenberg & Estis, analyze Bleecker Street Tenants Corp. v. Bleeker Jones LLC, where the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed the issue of whether the Rule against Perpetuities voided the renewal options clause in the parties' lease or whether the exception to that rule for options appurtenant to a lease was applicable.
By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins
13 minute read
June 04, 2008 | New York Law Journal
Procedural IssuesWarren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and William J. Robbins, a partner at the firm, review the recent decision in Third Lenox Terrace Associates v. Jones, where the motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety. The court's discussion, however, is a useful primer on the criteria and legal principles relevant to the particular defenses that were raised.
By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins
11 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