Restrictions in Certain Anti-Harassment Districts Could Impede Development
Kara I. Schechter Rakowski and Alexa Englander write: The development of multiple dwellings in Special Anti-Harassment zoning districts located in Manhattan has historically come along with its own special kind of red tape. In the last few decades, restrictions on demolition and material alterations have made it very difficult for development in certain special districts. Within the last two years, however, the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development has started to enforce a previously overlooked provision of the Zoning Resolution which has presented even more obstacles for developers to navigate in order to develop sites in the Special Hudson Yards, Clinton, West Chelsea and Garment Center districts in Manhattan.
August 15, 2017 at 02:03 PM
7 minute read
The development of multiple dwellings in Special Anti-Harassment zoning districts located in Manhattan has historically come along with its own special kind of red tape. In the last few decades, restrictions on demolition and material alterations have made it very difficult for development in certain special districts.
For example, as a prerequisite to pulling permits from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) to demolish, partially demolish or perform material alterations to multiple dwellings constructed in a special district (and initially occupied prior to Jan. 1, 1974), the owner must first apply for and obtain a Certificate of No Harassment (CONH) from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The CONH application process requires disclosure of information pertaining to current and former building occupants, owners and managers dating back over 10 years (and in the case of the Special Clinton District, dating back over 40 years) with the goal of determining whether any building occupant was “harassed,” as such term is defined under both the Housing Maintenance Code and the Zoning Resolution (ZR).
The CONH requirement has traditionally served to discourage, deter or otherwise limit development of some buildings in special districts, largely due to the various unknowns associated with a lengthy look-back period and treatment by prior owners of former or current building occupants.
This content has been archived.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 AllBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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