Credit: faber14/Adobe Stock NYC's Accelerator Program: PACE May Quicken in the City
Although the initial compliance period under LL97 is less than 6 months away, the authors are unaware of loans having closed under the Accelerator Program during the past year. This article sets forth some of the Accelerator Program's challenges and how certain proposed changes to its rules may improve upon its accessibility for LL97 compliance.
June 19, 2023 at 10:33 AM
9 minute read
Approximately one year ago, we authored "An Introduction to NYC's Accelerator PACE Financing Program," regarding New York City's Local Law 97 (FN1: LL97, 2019 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 97, N.Y.C. Admin. Code. Section 28.320) (LL97) and the Accelerator PACE Financing Program (the Accelerator Program) established through Local Law 96 (LL96). Since that time, the Accelerator Program's core documents have been updated to include specificity around retroactively eligible loans, the expansion of loan transfer provisions and clarifications regarding PACE lender certification requirements. (FN2: See generally New York City Accelerator PACE Financing Program Guidelines [Sept. 28, 2022] [version 2.2]). Although the initial compliance period under LL97 is less than 6 months away, the authors are unaware of loans having closed under the Accelerator Program during the past year. This article sets forth some of the Accelerator Program's challenges and how certain proposed changes to its rules may improve upon its accessibility for LL97 compliance.
With approximately 60,000 buildings in New York City subjected to LL97 compliance and the relatively low interest rate of PACE loans (generally around 6% to 7%), New York City should be an active market for PACE financing; yet, there is an absence of PACE financing in New York City whereas in other states, such as California and Texas, PACE financing has been utilized with much greater pace (pun intended) and frequency. (FN3: PACE Market Data (pacenation.org)).
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All
Tortious Interference With a Contract; Retaliatory Eviction Defense; Illegal Lockout: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute read Piercing the Corporate Veil; City’s Authority To Order Restorations; Standing: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
