Realty Law Digest
Scott E. Mollen discusses '159-MP Corp. v. CAB Bedford,' where the plaintiff/lessor of a Food Town grocery store failed to get an injunction against the landlord of a Whole Foods store opening up nearby.
July 11, 2017 at 02:00 PM
27 minute read
Land Use—Food Town Failed to Obtain Injunctive Relief Against Landlord of a New Whole Foods Store—Alleged Misrepresentations to the NYC Dep't of Buildings That a Project Was an “Alteration,” as Opposed to a New Building—Standing—Right to Challenge a Competitor's Project
A plaintiff is the lessor of property and operates a Food Town supermarket. The defendant owns nearby property and is developing a commercial retail center (project) which will include a Whole Foods Market. In 2011, the defendant filed a Form ZRD1 with the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB), “seeking pre-approval” of the project's construction plans as a “Type Alt-1, or major alteration, as opposed to a Type NB, or new building.” The defendant sought to convert two manufacturing use buildings into a single retail use building. If the project was characterized as a Type NB (as opposed to an Alt-1), it would “significantly increase the costs and complexities associated with the project.” The defendant's architect stated that “[r]equiring a filing as a new building would eliminate the economic feasibility of the project as it is impossible to provide the then required parking for all the commercial floor area on the site or within 500' of the site.” The DOB approved the defendant's ZRD1 with certain conditions.
In November 2012, the defendant filed a second Form ZRD1 (ZRD1#2), “requesting a modification of the original ZRD1.” The 2012 application stated that during the prior 18 months, economic conditions in the local neighborhood improved enough that the neighborhood could now support additional retail space. Therefore, the defendant sought to add “the maximum as of right commercial bulk to the site as allowed.” The ZRD1#2 application stated that “the proposed plan would as qualify as an Alt-1,” because “no floor area would be removed” and “no exterior walls would be removed.” The DOB approved the ZRD1#2 with conditions. The DOB did not agree that the plan did not involve removal of any floor area. However, the DOB approved the plan “based upon the representation that no perimeter walls were to be removed.” The defendant thereafter filed the project as an Alt-1 and the DOB approved the application. The DOB issued a building permit for the project on or about Dec. 31, 2013. Construction began thereafter.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250