Jennifer Porter to Speak at New York CLE Program on State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Litigation Issues

Jennifer M. Porter, Esq., a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be a speaker at Lorman’s New York CLE Program SEQRA, on Friday, March 9, 2012 in Latham, New York.

The all-day program will provide a comprehensive overview of New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) including specific discussion on regulatory requirements and compliance, the integration of SEQRA with the project review process, cumulative impacts and segmentation and how to use SEQRA to obtain a better project without bankrupting the applicant. Ms. Porter will be part of the afternoon panel and will be discussing SEQRA litigation issues including the statute of limitations, standing to sue, defending or attacking negative declarations and procedural and substantive judicial review.

The program is designed for attorneys, engineers, architects, city and county planners, environmental professionals, presidents, vice presidents, water resource specialists, public works directors, surveyors and project managers. For more information and to register for the program, click here.

Lease Extension Notices - New York Appellate Division Ignores Lease Text in Name of Equity

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, in 135 East 57th Street LLC v. Daffy's Inc. was faced with the following facts. A retail chain had occupied high profile space for about 15 years. The tenant had the right to renew by notice to the Landlord to be delivered by January 31, 2010, a year prior to lease expiration. For no reason other than a mistake by the tenant's controller, notice was not timely given. However an email and fax was sent (dated January 30, 2010) on February 4, 2010, purporting to exercise the option. The landlord on February 5, 2010, rejected the notice as being late, and accused the Tenant of back-dating the notice for its own purposes.

The trial court, for reasons which are not set forth in the appellate opinion, determined the tenant was entitled to equitable relief, and determined the notice exercising the renewal period, although not timely, was nonetheless effective.

The Appellate Division, reviewed the existing law of New York on honoring technically defective lease extension notices and summarized same, quoting Vitarelli v. Excel AutomotiveTech. Ctr., Inc., 

Equity will relieve a tenant from a failure to timely exercise an option in a lease to renew or purchase if  (1) the tenant in good faith made substantial improvements to the premises and would otherwise suffer a forfeiture, (2) the tenant's delay was the result of an excusable default, and (3) the landlord was not prejudiced by the delay.

The Court addressed these three tests in reverse order as follows:

1) Prejudice to Landlord - The Court seemingly took judicial notice of the fact the landlord was not prejudiced, which in all likelihood was true given the timing, i.e., tenant provided 11 months and 27 days notice rather than one year's notice of the extension, but since there was apparently no evidence on the issue, not necessarily so.

2) Delay in Notice was due to an "excusable default" - The Court, in one sentence and virtually without discussion, equates the tenant's Controller's "honest mistake" with "excusable default". If an honest mistake constitutes an excusable default one is forced to wonder what set of circumstances would not constitute excusable default.

3) Tenant, in good faith, made substantial improvements that would be forfeited - The Court acknowledged the tenant did not do this, i.e., this prong of the test was not met. Instead, the Court interpreted “good will” associated with 15 years at the location to be a valuable asset that would be forfeited in the absence of equitable intervention.

Then, notwithstanding the dubious thought process as to test two and the outright acknowledgment that test three was not met, but after noting the profitability of the store and the large number of employees who would lose their jobs, ruled the notice was effective.

This case seems to be a tremendous expansion of the existing law, and to stand for the proposition that the Court is free to look at all the facts and do whatever it thinks is right, given all the circumstances. Indeed, seemingly highlighting the lack of predictability, the Court quoted the Court of Appeals in JNA Realty, "By its nature, equitable relief must always depend on the facts of the particular case and not on hypotheticals."

Although the power of the court to “do equity” has a certain appeal (for no one is for unjust results), a system which allows a panel of judges, after the fact, and on a case-by-case basis, to impose their personal set of morals in lieu of the agreement reached between the parties is a system that lacks predictability and precision. And it is a system which is only equitable in the eyes of the party to whom relief is granted - I assure you it isn’t viewed as the least bit equitable by the party who sought to do nothing more than enforce the precise terms of the agreement between the parties.


Shepard A. Federgreen is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Gibbons to Exhibit at ICSC New York National Conference & Deal Making on Monday and Tuesday

The Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department will once again exhibit at the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) National Conference & Deal Making Idea Exchange at the Hilton New York on December 5-6.

The Department's booth will be in the same location as prior years, #490 in Americas Hall II. Stop by and meet with some of the Department's seven attorneys who will be attending. Show hours are Monday, December 5, from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, and Tuesday, December 6, from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Orange County Clerk's Office Closes, Preventing Property Searches and Threatening to Delay Real Estate Closings

Due to building conditions resulting from recent heavy rains, the County Executive of Orange County, New York, closed indefinitely the Orange County Government Center as of 3:00 p.m. last Thursday. In a press release, Orange County Executive Edward A. Diana announced having “ordered that the building be closed until further notice as we evaluate and remediate the situation.” The Orange County Government Center houses the County Clerk’s Office, among other government offices.

On an interim basis, the County Clerk’s Office will be operating out of the Department of Social Services, located at 11 Quarry Road in Goshen, and will offer the following limited services: recording and filing of documents, taking in maps, passport and pistol permits.

The closure and its indefinite duration present significant issues for real estate transactions since Orange County’s real estate records are housed at the Orange County Government Center and therefore are not presently accessible. As a result, until those records are relocated or the Orange Government Center is reopened, it will not be possible to perform searches in Orange County, including continuation searches for closings involving deals already in contract. The records to perform these searches are not available on-line.

New searches will have to be placed on hold until such time as the records become available, which will likely delay closings and may require modification of the contingency periods in purchase and sale agreements. For deals where a title search has already been performed, some title companies may consider allowing closings to proceed with a seller’s affidavit in lieu of a continuation search if the closure is expected to be long-term. These situations likely will be evaluated on an individual case-by-case basis.

Although the County Executive’s press release does not give any indication about the duration of the closure, we have learned that employees were seen packing up their desks at the close of business yesterday as though they would not be returning soon. We have also learned that the County is investigating an alternative site for relocation of official records, including property records, but apparently no site has been identified as of yet, and even when one is identified, moving that large a volume of documents will be a significant undertaking.

Given the uncertainties involved, real estate attorneys should review the contracts for their pending deals to see what contingencies are included and how the inability to conduct searches may impact their clients’ rights under those contracts. For deals currently being negotiated, consideration should be given to how the contingency clauses should be drafted and what the remedy will be if a title search cannot be performed for an extended period of time.

As bad as things are in Orange County, it could be worse. We understand that in upstate Schoharie County, the entire county government complex had several feet of water on the main floor and that all the county's paper records were destroyed. The issue in Orange County appears limited to access to paper records, not damage to them or their destruction.


Howard D. Geneslaw is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

 

Electric Vehicles - Charging Ahead in New Jersey

In early 2011, several bills were introduced to encourage the installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations. Senator Greenstein introduced Senate bill 2603, in January, which would require the New Jersey Turnpike Authority and the South Jersey Turnpike Authority to provide EV charging stations at the service areas along the toll roads, allocating 5% of the parking spaces to EV stations. The bill was reported out of the Senate Environment and Energy Committee on February 14. In March, another bill, S2784, also introduced by Senator Greenstein, would require new shopping center developments to allocate 5% of the parking spaces to EV charging stations. Both of these bills have been sitting since the Spring. Nonetheless, even in the absence of legislative mandates, EV stations have been popping up in NJ and NY. One of the newest ones announced is in Avalon, NJ.

Touted as the first EV charging station at the Jersey shore, Avalon opened its 24 hour charging station on August 5 in front of its public safety building. Under a public-private arrangement with U-Go Stations, the firm has built and will maintain the charging station and pay the town a percentage of the revenue generated. At the moment, there is not much competition. A search of EV charging stations within 150 miles of Newark, revealed 73 charging stations, two of them in Newark itself and the majority of them in Manhattan and Connecticut. Many of the locations are public parking lots, anticipating the future needs of their customers. Others are colleges and universities. In Connecticut, a number of Whole Foods markets have EV charging stations.

It is unclear exactly who is using these charging stations now. The first battery electric car, the Nissan Leaf, was introduced in December 2010, although other major manufacturers have announced the development of EVs. Moreover, the number of EVs is likely to increase because of new fuel efficiency standards announced requiring cars and trucks to meet the equivalent of 54 mph by 2025.

Recently, Nissan announced that it was developing a system for the Leaf to power households from its battery. Just think, in the future you can run to Whole Foods in your Leaf for a quart of milk and some extra electricity to run the household.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Real Property & Environmental Department.

National Association of Women Lawyers Confers Outstanding Member Award on Nancy Lottinville

On Thursday, July 21, 2011, Nancy A. Lottinville, Esq., Counsel to Gibbons P.C.’s Newark based Real Property & Environmental Department was awarded the Virginia S. Mueller Outstanding Member Award by the National Association of Women Lawyers, the first national bar association for women established in 1899. Ms. Lottinville, along with six other attorneys chosen from NAWL’s nationwide membership, accepted the award at NAWL’s Annual Meeting held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City. NAWL presents the Outstanding Member Award to NAWL members for exemplary contributions to NAWL. Ms. Lottinville’s contributions include several years of service on multiple committees including the 2011 Co-Chair of the Annual Meeting Logistics Committee, as well as Program Committee member for the 2010 New Jersey NAWL Night of Giving and the 2011 New Jersey Supreme Court Appellate Advocacy Program.

Ms. Lottinville is the Co-Chair of the Women’s Initiative Community Outreach Committee at Gibbons. Her practice focuses on real estate development and redevelopment, land use permitting and commercial real estate transactions for developers of shopping centers, retail stores, banks, franchisors and mixed commercial - residential developments, as well extensive land use due diligence investigations for regional and national investors in a variety of real estate development projects.

Others honored at NAWL’s Annual Meeting include: Brooksley Born, who received the Public Service Award; Susan Blount, who accepted the President’s Award on behalf of Prudential Financial Inc. Legal Department; Judge Harold Baer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and Marc Firestone , General Counsel of Kraft Foods who each received the NAWL Lead by Example Award; and Michele Coleman Mayes who received the M. Ashley Dickerson Award for the promotion of diversity in the legal profession. NAWL’s most prestigious award, the Arabella Babb Mansfield Award - named for the first woman admitted to a state bar in the United States - was presented to Jamie Gorelick, one of the longest serving Deputy Attorney’s General of the United States, a former general counsel to the Departments of Defense and Energy, a former president of the Washington D.C. Bar and current Co-Chair of the ABA Commission on Legal Ethics.

Ms. Lottinville's colleague, Luis Diaz, Esq., a Director and Chief Diversity Officer at Gibbons, participated in an afternoon CLE program panel which focused on overcoming unconscious bias. Gibbons is also represented within NAWL by Kristin Sostowski, who is a Director in Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department. Kristen was sworn in as a new member of NAWL’s Executive Board at the NAWL Annual Meeting. Christine Amalfe, Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department Chair, is also a member of the Board of the NAWL Foundation.

Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Law Alert Selected as One of LexisNexis Top 50 Environmental Law & Climate Change Blogs for 2011

LexisNexis Top 50 Blogs 2011

For the first time, the LexisNexis Environmental Law & Climate Change Community has honored a select group of blogs that they believe set the online standard for the practice area. This Real Property & Environmental Law Alert is among those they named in their 50 Top Environmental and Climate Change Blogs for 2011.

According to LexisNexis, "The Top 50 Blogs for the Environmental Law & Climate Change Community recognizes preeminent thought leaders in the blogosphere and creates an invaluable content aggregate for all segments of the environmental law and climate change practice. Most good blogs provide frequent posts on timely topics, but the authors in this year’s collective take their blogs to a different level by providing insightful commentary that demonstrates how blogs can—and do—impact the practice of environmental and climate change law."

They described our blog as:

A rotating group of contributors writes about transactional real estate, development and redevelopment, and environmental law. Although there is some focus on developments in New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia and Delaware, the content is also national in scope.

The Real Property & Environmental Law Alert content is authored by contributing attorneys from the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department. "Our goal is to provide timely commentary and analysis on developing legal and business issues within the industry. We are honored to be recognized by LexisNexis for our efforts," said Susanne Peticolas, Editor of the blog.

City of Yonkers, N.Y. Launches Fluorescent Light Bulb Recycling Program

Photo courtesy of manostphoto - freedigitalphotos.net

The City of Yonkers, New York, under a December 21. 2010 Consent Agreement (“Agreement”) with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), has initiated a recycling program to properly handle its residents’ spent fluorescent light bulbs.

An EPA inspection of various Yonkers buildings in 2008 led to a City citation for violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), which governs the storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, mercury-containing bulbs, such as fluorescent bulbs, must be handled as hazardous waste and, therefore, must be disposed of in a special licensed facility. Alternatively, if the bulbs are properly recycled they can be handled under universal waste rules, which greatly simplifies the accounting of their disposal and lifts other federal requirements.

Under the Code of Federal Regulations, a Small Quantity Universal Waste Handler accumulates less than 5,000kg of universal waste on site at any one time whereas a Large Quantity Universal Waste Handler accumulates 5,000kg of universal waste or more on site at any one time. 5,000kg is roughly the equivalent of 18,000 4’ linear T12 fluorescent bulbs or 27,000 4’ linear T8 fluorescent bulbs. The City of Yonkers is defined under the Agreement as a Small Quantity Generator, that is, a generator of less than 1,000kg of universal waste per month. This is roughly the equivalent of 3,600 4’ T12 fluorescent bulbs or 5,400 4’ linear T8 fluorescent bulbs.

Fluorescent light bulbs are encouraged by EPA because they are more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs thereby saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, they contain mercury which, if released, can cause a variety of health problems including damage to the nervous system. By instituting this recycling program, Yonkers will create significant health benefits to its residents.

Under the Agreement, Yonkers will begin collecting fluorescent bulbs, light ballasts and electronic waste from its residents at the City Recycling Center at 735 Saw Mill River Road, Yonkers, New York. According to the EPA, Yonkers has been compliant with the enforcement Agreement.

Universal Waste Handlers as well as generators should take caution from EPA’s action against the City of Yonkers. In addition to requiring the implementation of this disposal program and the associated costs, Yonkers was assessed a fine and a rigorous penalty schedule was established in the event it does not timely comply with the requirements under the Agreement. Based on its success with the City of Yonkers, EPA may be inclined to seek similar remedies against Universal Waste Handlers, both Small Quantity and Large Quantity.

For more information on the proper handling of fluorescent light bulbs visit EPA’s website.

* Photo courtesy of manostphoto - freedigitalphotos.net.


Sandro G. Ocasio is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Proving Liability for Clean-Up Costs - Nexus; Circumstances and Experts - Lessons from Dimant and DVL

On May 18, 2011, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a trial court’s decision that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection had failed to establish sufficient “nexus” or connection between the operator of a dry cleaner and regional groundwater contamination. In New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Dimant, et al., (Docket A-3180-09T2), the Appellate Division soundly rejected New Jersey’s claim that “the Spill Act must be interpreted and applied very broadly to find that any discharge at any time, even a de minimis one, imposes liability on all operators handling that product, and that a direct causal connection between the discharge and the damages need not be established.” This sort of argument which asks the court to overlook critical connections is all too common in environmental cases. Indeed, governmental plaintiffs often invoke policy reasons when asking for relaxed nexus requirements whereas private parties seeking contribution frequently call on the courts to shift the burden to the alleged dischargers.

However, in Dimant the Appellate Division reminded all potential plaintiffs seeking to impose liability for clean-up costs on former owners or operators that they must meet their burden by coming forward with a preponderance of the evidence sufficient to prove a “nexus” between the defendant and the discharge as well as connecting the damages to the contamination. Although plaintiffs may resort to circumstantial evidence and experts, any break in the chain of connections between a defendant and the discharge or the discharge and the alleged contamination (or the contamination and the plaintiff’s damages) should be fatal after Dimant.

Dimant involved the dry cleaning solvent perchloroethylene (PCE) which had impacted over 350 acres of groundwater in and around Bound Brook. Although there were no less than three dry cleaners in the neighborhood (each of which had several owners and operators), as well as two or three other possible sources of PCE, NJDEP’s investigations eventually focused on only one relatively short term operator of one of the dry cleaners. Using a combination of inspection reports that confirmed the presence of discharge pipes in and around dry cleaning operations, and sampling data, NJDEP’s expert concluded that one particular operator was the “primary source” of the groundwater contamination. However, the trial court took a critical look at the alleged connections between this dry cleaner’s operations and the PCE discharge as well as the nexus between any potential discharge and the probability that it caused such extensive contamination. After a non-jury trial, the court found that NJDEP failed to prove its case primarily because its expert failed to address the presence of older, weathered PCE which pre-dated defendant’s activities. NJDEP’s expert was further faulted for the failure to consider other possible sources of the PCE. Indeed, reading between the lines it appears that NJDEP probably cobbled together sufficient evidence to prove that defendant’s operations resulted in minor discharges into a paved parking area. However, it also appears that NJDEP utterly failed to establish that defendant’s discharge was of sufficient volume or duration to have permeated the pavement and entered the groundwater and then caused the contamination. Thus, the chain of connections between the dry cleaning operations and the contaminated groundwater was broken.

The decision in Dimant considered the Spill Act’s somewhat open ended “in any way responsible” standard for liability. However, the analysis, and especially the court’s reluctance to fill in any gaps connecting the defendant to the discharge, or the discharge to the contamination, is very similar to a recent CERCLA decision from the Northern District of New York. In an unpublished decision in DVL, Inc. v. General Electric (Docket No. 07-cv-1075, N.D.N.Y., December 6, 2010), the Federal District Court granted summary judgment based largely upon a private cost recovery plaintiff’s failure to establish that defendants disposed of PCBs on plaintiff’s property. The District Court acknowledged that CERCLA contains a “relaxed” causation requirement which can be satisfied by circumstantial (as opposed to direct) evidence. Nevertheless, in DVL the District Court found that testimony concerning historical practices at other nearby sites and mere proximity to a manufacturing operation which produced PCBs was insufficient to satisfy plaintiff’s burden of showing that defendants had disposed of PCBs at plaintiff’s site. As in Dimant, there was no doubt that defendant handled the chemical which caused the contamination. Nevertheless, the property owner could not recover because it failed to connect the defendants to the particular PCBs which drove the clean-up of its property.

Dimant and DVL show that defendants - even defendants that produced or handled the toxic chemical at issue - can prevail in clean-up cost recovery litigation. Despite the ambiguous nature of the liability provisions in New Jersey’s Spill Act and the relaxed proofs allowed by CERCLA, a plaintiff seeking to recover clean-up costs must meet its burden by proving causation at each step in the chain between the defendant and the contamination. The “nexus” requirement in both Spill Act and CERCLA require that plaintiffs connect the dots with evidence not mere speculation.

Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Law Alert Nominated for LexisNexis Top 50 Environmental Law & Climate Change Blogs for 2011

For the first time, the LexisNexis Environmental Law & Climate Change Community is honoring a select group of blogs that they believe set the online standard for the practice area. This Real Property & Environmental Law Alert is among the nominees.

According to LexisNexis, they selected the nominees based on timely topics, quality writing, frequent posts and that certain something 'extra' that keeps a web audience coming back for more. They described our blog as follows:

“A rotating group of contributors writes about transactional real estate, development and redevelopment, and environmental law. Although there is some focus on developments in New Jersey, New York, Philadelphia and Delaware, the content is also national in scope.”

Readers are invited to comment and support their favorite nominees. We urge you to click here and give us your support for this blog and our postings. The deadline for comments is February 28, 2011.

Jennifer Porter to Speak at New York CLE Program on State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Litigation Issues

Jennifer M. Porter, Esq., an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be a speaker at Lorman’s New York CLE Program, SEQRA, on Thursday, March 10, 2011, in Latham, New York.

The all-day program will provide a comprehensive overview of New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) including specific discussion on regulatory requirements, the integration of SEQRA with the project review process, cumulative impacts and segmentation and the benefits and uses of a generic environmental impact statement. Ms. Porter will be part of the afternoon panel and will be discussing SEQRA litigation issues including the statute of limitations, standing to sue, defending or attacking negative declarations and procedural and substantive judicial review.

The program is designed for attorneys, engineers, architects, city and county planners, environmental professionals, presidents, vice presidents, water resource specialists, public works directors, surveyors and project managers. For more information and to register for the program, click here.

Gibbons Directors Douglas Janacek and Russell Bershad Recognized as Leading Real Estate Lawyers

Douglas Janacek and Russell Bershad, Co-Chairs of Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department were each recognized as leading real estate practitioners in recent industry publications.

Doug was one of 12 lawyers to be included in a feature story on the leading real estate attorneys in the state in New Jersey & Company's November/December issue.

Douglas Janacek’s career goal has been 'to be all inclusive,' and since joining Gibbons in 1986, he’s done just that. Janacek has worked in all aspects of residential as well as commercial, office, and industrial development real estate law, including zoning, planning, and permitting, as well as represented green building and sustainable design residential projects ...

This Fall, Russ was named to Real Estate Weekly's nationwide list of professionals who are leaders in the real estate industry.

In one of the most challenging real estate environments in recent history, Bershad has expanded what is one of New Jersey's busiest regional practices.

Russ represents clients in buying, selling, financing, leasing and developing real estate assets including distressed debt and is NJ counsel to major corporations and leading developers.

Gibbons Counsel Nancy Lottinville Appeared on One-on-One with Steve Adubato

On November 13, 2010, Nancy Lottinville appeared on One on-One with Steve Adubato on his series on public television. As a featured guest, Ms. Lottinville discussed her background and experience throughout her career in all areas of land use, development, governmental permitting, and multiple aspects of transactional real estate law.

“Nancy has an impressive career representing national and regional retail, restaurant, office, and multifamily developers, as well nonprofits and local planning boards,” says Patrick C. Dunican Jr., Chairman and Managing Director of Gibbons. “But her broader professional goals to support women at all levels both within our firm, and in the commercial real estate industry as a whole, make her an even more compelling interview subject.”

Produced by the Caucus Educational Corporation, One-on-One reaches more than 10 million households in six states (NJ, NY, CT, PA, DE, and MD). The program features the absorbing, real-life stories of the area’s notable business, political, academic, and creative innovators, highlighting their experiences and accomplishments in an engaging and relatable way. Host Steve Adubato relies on his broad knowledge and conversational, inquisitive interviewing style to inspire unexpected exchanges.

Gibbons Exhibits at New York ICSC Show Amid Upbeat Mood

For the seventh year in a row, the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department exhibited at the International Council of Shopping Centers' ("ICSC") National Conference and Deal Making Idea Exchange in America's Hall II at the Hilton New York earlier this month.

The buzz at the show was optimistic this year, similar to the upbeat mood at the September PA/NJ/DE Idea Exchange in Philadelphia, with over 6,000 attendees and 340 exhibitors "deal making" throughout the Hilton New York and the Sheraton New York Towers & Hotel. Along with the six Gibbons attorneys, the show was also attended by shopping center owners, developers, managers, marketing specialists, investors, lenders, retailers, and other professionals.

Gibbons will be exhibiting at both the Philadelphia and New York shows again next year - we look forward to seeing you there!


Howard D. Geneslaw is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Gibbons to Exhibit at ICSC New York National Conference & Deal Making

The Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department will once again exhibit at the International Council of Shopping Centers (“ICSC”) National Conference & Deal Making Idea Exchange at the Hilton New York on December 6-7.

The Department’s booth will be in the same location as prior years, #490 in America’s Hall II. Stop by and meet with some of the Department’s six attorneys who will be attending. Show hours are Monday, December 6, from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, and Tuesday, December 7, from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.

In September, the Department exhibited at the ICSC’s PA/NJ/DE Idea Exchange on September 15-16, at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia. We reported that the attendance and mood had both improved over the year before. We are hopeful that the positive mood will continue.  See you in New York!


Howard D. Geneslaw is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Due Diligence in Acquiring Distressed Debt -- Part Two

This is the second of two articles about counseling clients in acquiring distressed commercial mortgage loans. In the first blog post we discussed due diligence regarding the loan documents and loan collateral. This post addresses due diligence on the borrower and any guarantors, and due diligence regarding the status of the loan being acquired. As noted in Part One, due diligence for acquiring distressed mortgage debt takes place under tight time constraints, without the cooperation or participation of the property owner, with no opportunity to interview tenants or, in many cases, to inspect the property itself. You will basically be reviewing files that are sometimes incomplete and often contain outdated information. Nevertheless, there will be information of value in the files to be reviewed with a discriminating eye.

A. The Borrower and Guarantors

Questions regarding the borrower and any guarantors really go to the likelihood of the loan being repaid, with or without entering into a workout agreement.

The pricing of the loan sale undoubtedly will take into account the risk and hassle likely to be associated with collecting the loan, which will be significantly impacted by the availability of a deep pocket to pay the loan.

  1. What is the reputation of the borrower and any guarantors? Is there a competent management team in place? You will want to run judgment and lien searches, bankruptcy and litigation searches, credit and other investigations to determine the ability of a borrower to repay the obligations.
  2. Determine the nature and extent of personal liability for the loan. The borrower may have personal liability if the loan is recourse or even if it is non-recourse, to the extent of the carve outs, discussed below. However, most borrowers are single asset entities owning only the mortgaged premises, so the borrower’s personal liability is not giving the lender much of anything beyond what the lender already has by virtue of its mortgage collateral.
  3. You may also have recourse under personal guaranties. Personal guaranties run the gamut from full recourse for the entire amount of the loan, partial recourse for a portion of the loan amount, recourse for completing construction in the case of a construction loan, recourse for environmental liabilities of the borrower and recourse for carve outs. You will scrutinize any personal guaranties to make sure they contain all the usual waivers of defenses and the like, and be particularly careful of partial guaranties to make sure the scope of liability is clear and unambiguous, which sometimes becomes an issue if not well drafted. For example, is a guaranty of fifty percent of the “loan” extinguished when half the loan is repaid, or does it remain outstanding for half of the unpaid principal balance until the loan is paid in full? As noted above, you will want to run judgment and lien searches, bankruptcy and litigation searches, credit and other investigations to determine the ability of a guarantor to repay the guaranteed obligations.
  4. Few loans are completely non-recourse. Most so-called non-recourse loans have carve outs, i.e., exceptions to the non-recourse terms listing events that will result in personal liability of the borrower which, in turn, may be guaranteed by one or more guarantors. The carve outs can be very important if the borrower’s liability for breaching them is personally guaranteed, or in the unlikely event that the borrower has assets over and above the real estate collateral. Bankruptcy of the borrower is one of the most valuable carve outs if there is a deep pocket guarantor who most likely controls the borrower to a significant degree, because it reduces the likelihood of the borrower filing bankruptcy. Other carve outs similarly may be important, especially if and to the extent they impose liability for the full unpaid amount of the loan and not just for the actual losses resulting from breach of the carve outs.

B. Loan Status

The status of the loan, i.e., whether it is in default or not, and the stage to which it has progressed and the route taken to get there, is a consideration as critical as any others.

  1. Is the loan in default? If so, how? Is the default material? What default notices are required by the loan documents? Have they been sent as required by the loan documents and do they conform with the requirements of the loan documents? Have notices been sent to guarantors? Has the lender elected to accelerate?
  2. Are there other mortgage loans on the property? Are there intercreditor agreements? Mezzanine loans? Participants with the lender? What is the status of the foregoing?
  3. Is the loan cross collateralized or cross defaulted with other loans? What is their status?
  4. Have the lender and borrower entered into a pre-workout agreement? Have there been workout discussions?
  5. Has the lender started exercising rights against the collateral? Does the lender collect or control rents?
  6. Review the lender’s credit file, including internal memoranda. Review the loan administration history. Will loan officers be available as witnesses?
  7. Is there any evidence that the borrower might be able to assert defenses to repayment? Has the lender exercised undue control over the borrower’s business or management? Has the lender agreed to forebear or conveyed a false sense of security to the borrower? The list of possible foreclosure defenses and lender liability claims is too long to enumerate here. It will be difficult at best to determine if any valid defenses or claims might exist based on a review of lender’s files, but you will want to be on the lookout for any evidence in the way of letters or notes that might suggest a problem.

Summary

In summary, due diligence on a distressed mortgage asset is akin to a doctor doing a physical on a patient. You may not have time to examine everything, you will not be able to get all the information that would be available when a loan is originated, you need focus on what is important first and report on issues. This is a diagnostic exercise; you cannot cure defects at this stage but you can evaluate them.

To the greatest extent you need to understand the status of the loan, the collateral, the borrower and any guarantors. You will then be able to assist your client effectively in strategizing how the asset can be dealt with if and when it is acquired and, bottom line, determining if the asset is worth buying at the price the lender is demanding or can obtain.

* Photo courtesy of Flickr.

Russell B. Bershad is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

New York Subdivision Law Amended to Allow Planning Boards Greater Flexibility in Granting Extensions

Due to the current economic climate and project financing difficulties, Section 276(7)(c) of the New York Town Law was recently amended to allow planning boards greater flexibility in extending subdivision approval beyond the two ninety (90) day extensions previously allowed.

Town Law 276(7)(c) provides that a conditional final subdivision plat expires 180 days following the date of the resolution of approval unless all conditions are satisfied. It further authorizes planning boards to grant two extensions, having a duration of ninety (90) days each, after expiration of the original 180-day timeframe for satisfaction of conditions of approval. The costs of satisfying conditions of approval can be significant. If the conditions are not satisfied by the end of the second extension, the subdivision approval becomes null and void, and the applicant would then be required to commence the approval process all over again at significant time and expense.

The amended law now permits planning boards discretion to extend conditional final plat approval for additional ninety (90) day periods, with no limitation on the number of extensions available, “if, in a planning board’s opinion, such extension is warranted by the particular circumstances.” The bill, S07241, had a relatively quick turn-around time by the legislature after being sponsored by Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins from the 35th Congressional District in March of this year. The bill received Senate approval in April, Assembly approval in June and was signed into law by Governor Paterson on September 17, 2010 as 2010 N.Y. Laws 522.

The justification behind the legislation indicates that the current economic climate, coupled with the difficulty in obtaining project financing in many cases, argued for giving planning boards the discretion to extend conditional approval of the final plat. As further noted, “there are already significant hurdles and expenses generated in residential development which should not be compounded because of a time limitation that would effectively terminate a project.” The text of the bill is available at the New York State Assembly’s website which can be accessed by clicking here and the memorandum summarizing the bill and setting forth additional information regarding the justification behind the amendment can be accessed here.


Howard D. Geneslaw is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.  Jennifer M. Porter, an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, assisted in the preparation of this post. 

Due Diligence in Acquiring Distressed Debt -- Part One

There is no shortage of buyers anxious to buy distressed mortgages. The simple reason is the possibility of substantial profit if a loan can be purchased at a significant discount and there is a realistic possibility that the borrower or, if it forecloses, the lender, will be able to salvage the property. This is the first of two articles about counseling clients in acquiring distressed commercial mortgage loans. Bankruptcy, special assets such as condominium properties and UCC foreclosures are beyond the scope of these articles.

Lenders and purchasers come together through a variety of avenues, but common to all is the need for the purchaser to conduct due diligence on the asset that the lender proposes to sell. Some lenders require due diligence to be completed before bids are received from prospective purchasers, others require due diligence to proceed under a letter of intent or similar stage of the process and still others will allow due diligence to be undertaken after a purchase agreement has been signed, which agreement will typically be contingent on the purchaser being satisfied with its due diligence.

Common to almost all deals is the lender’s insistence that due diligence
be completed in a very short time period.

Due diligence for acquiring distressed mortgage debt is much like the due diligence a lender would conduct in deciding to make a loan in the first instance, except the loan file is or should be complete rather than being assembled as in the case of a original loan. Unlike your role in closing a loan, where you assuring, to the greatest extent possible, that all issues are resolved before the loan can be closed, in this case you are issue-spotting.

Additionally, due diligence proceeds in most deals without the cooperation or participation of the property owner; indeed, in many instances without the property owner’s knowledge that the loan is being sold. The inability to interview the property owner, its tenants and in some cases access the property itself obviously constrains due diligence significantly. Moreover, due diligence in connection with acquiring distressed debt requires evaluating the performing status of the loan, the likelihood of being able to reach workout terms with the borrower, the status of pending litigation between the lender and borrower and, in general, envisioning a strategy that will enable the loan purchaser to recover its investment in acquiring the loan and realize a substantial profit.

If there is pending litigation, then, in addition to the areas noted below, litigators will need to review the litigation file. Aside from the litigation file, due diligence can be divided generally into several areas:

  • The loan documents;
  • The loan collateral;
  • The borrower and guarantors; and
  • The loan status.

In this article we discuss due diligence related to the first two items, the loan documents and the loan collateral.

A. Loan Documents

Obviously, the loan documents must be reviewed. Some of the material considerations include:

  1. First and foremost, determine if you have all the documents. Make sure they are complete, properly executed and, if applicable, acknowledged. It is not rare to find missing pages or portions of documents. Are originals available? Does the loan package include all the documents you would expect including the promissory note, mortgage, lease assignments, UCCs, guaranties, environmental indemnification agreement, adequate legal opinion and all loan amendments and modifications?
  2. Analyze the quality of the documents. Many, if not most, loan documents contain similar provisions but some are more comprehensive than others. You want to make sure your documents contain all customary terms. Your antenna should be up for unusual terms which may tell you about issues that were of particular concern to the lender when the loan was closed, which may appear in many ways including by way of escrow agreements or the like. What are the events of default, notice and cure periods? What are the due on sale and due on encumbrance provisions? Are the terms clear and unambiguous?
  3. Pay particular attention to the business terms. Scrutinize the business terms of the loan, make sure there is no room for alternative interpretations of the terms. Are provisions for late charges and other charges clear and likely to be enforceable? Is the loan full or partial recourse, or non-recourse? Are there guaranties, full or partial, payment or completion? If the loan is non-recourse, are there carve outs? Are they typical? Is there personal recourse if the borrower files bankruptcy? Can the loan can be prepaid and if so, under what circumstances?
  4. You are buying debt and regardless of whether your client is paying a fixed price or paying a percentage of the outstanding indebtedness, you need to confirm that the amount the lender has stated to be the outstanding indebtedness is consistent with the loan documents. This is critical because you can be fairly certain that at some point the borrower will scrutinize and be prepared to challenge any calculation of its indebtedness with which it disagrees. Bear in mind that it will be a rare circumstance when you will be able to get a loan estoppel statement from the borrower before you close the loan acquisition, and certainly not if the loan is in litigation or on its way there. You also have to focus on escrows held by the lender and their accounting because the borrower can be expected to do so.
  5. Determine if funds remain to be loaned and, if so, how much and the conditions to further funding. If the loan is in default, it is very likely that the loan documents will not require the lender to continue funding although practical realities may impel the lender to do so in order for the real estate to have value or to maintain its value.

B. Loan Collateral

Nothing matters more than making sure, to the greatest extent possible, that the loan is properly collateralized, the collateral is not impaired and the lender owns the loan.

Issues regarding title, survey and lien priority are common to every deal. However, other issues relating to the physical assets vary significantly depending on the nature of the asset, whether raw land, property under development, single or multi-tenanted, condominium, multi-family or other commercial.

  1. Review the title insurance policy issued when the loan was made, and any endorsements or subsequent policies if the loan was modified. Make sure the mortgage was insured as a first priority lien (assuming your client is buying a first mortgage). Do not rely solely on title insurance; confirm for yourself that the mortgage and all modifications were properly recorded and that the mortgage constitutes a perfected lien.
  2. Confirm that the encumbered real estate covers all the property that should be covered including appurtenant easements that may be critical for the proper operation and functioning of the property (for example, easements for parking on, or crossing, adjacent property) and look to see if all necessary and desirable title endorsements were issued. Also, if applicable, see if a construction loan policy was issued and has an expiration date.
  3. Review the survey. See if the survey is for the as-built project. Is the legal description in the mortgage and title policy the same as the legal description in the survey? Does the survey show material encroachments from or onto the encumbered property? Are there access issues? Has the property changed?
  4. Check to make sure the amount of the title insurance policy is the same as the maximum loan amount.
  5. Order title updates including property searches, tax searches and judgment searches on borrower and guarantors. Determine, as soon as possible, if the property has been transferred, if there are subordinate liens against the borrower or guarantors, and, of course, confirm that the lender hold the loan free and clear.
  6. You will probably request the title insurer to issue an ALTA 10.1 endorsement at closing of the loan transfer. This endorsement insures the validity of the loan assignment and the continued priority of the mortgage.
  7. Check to see if there a separate assignment of leases and rents, and that it is properly recorded. Have UCCs been properly filed?
  8. Review the status of development, building and zoning permits and approvals as reflected by the loan file. The scope of this review may vary widely depending, for example, on whether or not the loan was closed on a fully developed and approved project, or one that was to be built. In any event, has zoning changed so that the project and its use no are no longer conforming?
  9. Are there other material development related approvals or agreements, for example, a financial agreement with the municipality exempting the improvements from realty taxes and requiring payment in lieu of taxes? If so, you will want to know the status of the tax exemption, determine if all annual reports have been filed, if there is an audit underway by the municipality, if there are any issues with the municipality. If the project has been developed as a condominium, has it been registered with the Department of Community Affairs, have annual reports been filed, are any enforcement actions pending?
  10. Is the property leased? Does the lender have current rent roll information, copies of leases? Does the information on the rent roll match the leases themselves? Are the leases subordinate? Has the lender entered into, or will it be obligated by the loan documents, to enter into non-disturbance agreements with some or all the tenants? Is there evidence of any tenant defaults? Are the tenants open for business?
  11. Does the loan file include environmental reports? Were any issues uncovered by the reports? Is there evidence of ISRA compliance, if applicable? Is the property being used in a manner that could raise environmental concerns?
  12. Does the file contain evidence that all required insurance policies and certificates have been issued, renewed and remain in full force and effect, for the benefit of the lender? Is the coverage acceptable in scope and dollar amount? Is the insurer acceptable?
  13. Have the borrower and, if applicable, guarantors, complied with financial reporting requirements under the loan documents? Are the financial reports in the loan file up to date and is the information in the reports acceptable?
  14. Review with a critical eye the property appraisal that the lender received when the loan was made and any updates.
  15. The loan file should contain other material information regarding the property such as engineering and physical condition reports, material contracts and agreements.
  16. Is there a property manager? Is the management agreement subordinate to the mortgage or otherwise terminable on relatively short notice? Can you evaluate the manager and its capabilities?

In our next article we will discuss due diligence regarding the borrower and any loan guarantors, and the loan status.

* Photo courtesy of Flickr.


Russell B. Bershad is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Uncertainty Over Extension of Reduced Capital Gains Tax May Spur End of Year Real Estate Deals

Currently, no one knows whether Congress and the President will take action this year to retain the historically low long-term capital gains rates, which are scheduled to increase to 20% effective January 1, 2011. This uncertainty has motivated some real estate sellers to contemplate closing in 2010 in order to avoid potentially increased capital gains taxes next year.

Presently, the top long-term capital gains tax rate is 15% as a result of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which extended many of the Bush-era tax cuts through the end of 2010.

The following is a basic example of the amount of savings that an owner could realize by selling his or her real estate in 2010, with the assumption that the top long-term capital gains tax rate will in fact increase in 2011 by 5% to 20%:

Original Purchase Price - $2,000,000
Depreciation - $1,000,000
Improvements - $250,000
Basis - $1,250,000 ($2,000,000 - $1,000,000 + $250,000)
2010 Sales Price - $4,000,000
Gain - $2,750,000 ($4,000,000 - $1,250,000)
Potential Savings if Congress Does Not Retain 15% Rate - $137,500 ($2,750,000 x 5%)

Keep in mind that if an individual or flow-through seller takes back cash and an installment note in exchange for the property, the selling taxpayer will normally use the installment method to report gain on a deferred basis with respect to that portion of the proceeds received when principal payments are made on the installment note. While deferral of income recognition is normally good tax planning, long-term capital gains deferred into years beyond December 31, 2010 are expected to be taxed at the higher 20% rate referenced above. Taxpayers can elect out of the installment method, and pay the tax on the gain in the year of sale. The decision to accelerate payment of income taxes into 2010 (without receipt of principal payments on the installment note) to obtain a rate reduction from 20% to 15% will be a tough decision for most taxpayers.

There are a number of very unique factors, such as market conditions, which will influence a real estate owner’s decision to sell an asset. Watching what Washington does at the end of this year with respect to future tax rates is just one element which should be considered together with market factors. Taxpayers should consult with their professional tax advisors before deciding to take advantage of 2010’s historically low long-term capital gains tax rate.

IRS Circular 230 Disclaimer: To ensure compliance with IRS Circular 230, any U.S. federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by the recipient or any other taxpayer (i) for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the recipient or any other taxpayer, or (ii) in promoting, marketing or recommending to another party a partnership or other entity, investment plan, arrangement or other transaction addressed herein. For more information on this disclaimer, please see the Gibbons website. (http://www.gibbonslaw.com/circular230/)


Peter J. Ulrich is a Director in the Gibbons Corporate Department.

Muddied Waters - EPA's Stormwater Rules for Construction Projects

Roman lawyers were timed by water clocks which they realized could be slowed by the addition of dirt or sand and thereby gaining more time to argue. Hence lawyers are often cited for “muddying the waters.” In the case challenging the US Environmental Protection Agency’s stormwater rules for construction sites, it is the court that has muddied the waters. By holding the suit in abeyance, but keeping the problematic standard in place, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has managed to confuse all of the parties.

The USEPA issued construction stormwater rules in December 2009, which were immediately challenged by the National Association of Home Builders and Wisconsin Builders Association in the Seventh Circuit as concerns the numeric turbidity value. The rules were scheduled to go into effect on February 1, 2010. EPA then filed an unopposed motion to vacate the numeric limitation pending a study to issue a new rule in November 2012. The Seventh Circuit essentially denied the motion as to vacating the numeric turbidity standard but apparently agreed to hold the suit in abeyance until February 2012 by granting the EPA’s motion “to the extent that the case is remanded to the EPA for further proceedings.” Thus, the numeric limitation stands: it is enforceable even though EPA has admitted in its brief that the process by which it was developed was flawed. A truly muddy situation.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

New York Requires Attorneys to Verify Residential Foreclosure Pleadings in Response to National Foreclosure Freeze

On October 20, 2010, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the State of New York announced that lender’s counsel in residential foreclosure actions will now be required to file an affirmation certifying that they have taken reasonable measures to verify the accuracy of documents submitted in connection with the action. The new rule is effective immediately. The New York State Unified Court System has provided a sample affirmation that was released with Judge Lippman’s statement.

Under the new rule, there are three specific instances when an affirmation needs to be submitted:

  • For new cases, with the Request for Judicial Intervention;
  • For pending cases, with either the proposed order of reference or the proposed judgment of foreclosure; and
  • In cases where a foreclosure judgment has been entered, but the property has not yet been sold at auction, the affirmation must be submitted to the referee, and a copy filed with the court, no later than five business days before the scheduled auction.

Finally, there is a “continuing obligation” to file an affirmation if an attorney learns of new facts after the initial filing.

The new rule, the first in the country, is a reaction to the recent “robosigning” controversy, which has halted residential foreclosures nationwide and prompted a massive investigation by all fifty state attorney general offices in the United States into the practices of several major financial institutions. In addition, at least one state, Florida, has also announced an investigation of a law firm that has been prosecuting foreclosure actions.

In announcing the new rule, Chief Judge Lippman said,

We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs – such as a family home – during this period of economic crisis. This new filing requirement will play a vital role in ensuring that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined, accurate, and error-free before any judge is asked to take the drastic step of foreclosure.

Given the apparent scope and visibility of the residential foreclosure problem, it is likely that other state court systems will follow New York’s lead.

Jennifer Porter to Speak at New York CLE Program on the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

Jennifer M. Porter, Esq., an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be a speaker at Lorman’s New York CLE Program, SEQRA, on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 in Carle Place, New York.

The all-day program will provide a comprehensive overview of New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) including specific discussion on analysis framework and techniques, mitigation measures, interaction with other statutes and emerging fields in environmental review. Ms. Porter will open the seminar by discussing SEQRA basics including state and local SEQRA regulations, process and procedures, agencies and decisions subject to SEQRA, determining significance and environmental impact statement (EIS) preparation and review.

The program is particularly timely in view of New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s recent and long overdue release of the latest edition of the State Environmental Quality Review Act Handbook. The program is designed for attorneys, engineers, architects, city and county planners, environmental professionals, presidents, vice presidents, water resource specialists, public works directors, surveyors and project managers. For more information and to register for the program, click here.

USEPA Issues Plan for Encouraging Reuse of Land Fills and Mines for Renewable Energy Development

On October 15, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) released a draft plan addressing its RE Powering Americas Land Initiative. The Initiative is designed to encourage development of renewable energy projects on current and formerly contaminated land and mine sites. The plan focuses on providing useful resources for communities, developers, industry, state and local governments or anyone interested in reusing such sites for renewable energy development.

The tools on the USEPA website include mapping and fact sheets for sites where USEPA and the U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Lab are analyzing the potential for wind, solar, or small hydro development. The mapping tool provides USEPA’s site name and identification information, the program managing the site; a link to the site's cleanup status information; and specific acreage and renewable energy resource information. Another interactive map offers information on the various federal and state incentives available for such projects.

As part of the plan, USEPA will reach out to prospective developers and investors though meetings and webinars. The first such webinar is scheduled for October 21, 2010, at 3:00 pm EDT. It will provide an overview of how siting renewable energy on brownfields benefits communities and how local governments can strategically plan for renewable energy siting on contaminated sites. Speakers will discuss their experiences on siting renewable energy project on contaminated sites, including challenges and advantages associated with using contaminated land.

Over time, hundreds of thousands of properties and millions of acres across the country have been damaged by pollution. Reusing these properties for renewable energy could allow these unproductive properties to be returned to sustainable and beneficial uses that are protective of health and the environment.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

NY Landlord May Use "Self Help" to Evict

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term has just reaffirmed that a landlord, under certain circumstances, may evict a tenant utilizing classic “self help” and without court action.  In Sol De Ibiza, LLC v Panjo Realty, Inc. the landlord, after the tenant failed to comply with various rent demands, padlocked the door - which padlock the tenant then cut off - and which the landlord then replaced.  The Civil Court granted petitioner-tenant’s petition for restoration of possession and directed an assessment of damages pursuant to RPAPL Sect. 853, which essentially entitles someone who is ejected in a forcible or unlawful ejection to treble damages.  The Appellate Term reversed, ruling that this decision was premature, while affirming a NY landlord’s right to exercise self-help if:

  • the subject lease specifically reserves the landlord’s right to re-enter upon non-payment. The court determined that the lease language in this case was acceptable for such a reservation,
  • prior to reentry landlord serves a valid rent demand,
  • reentry was effected “peaceably,” a term not defined in this case, and • tenant, in fact, is in default in its obligation to pay rent.

Obviously there are real risks associated with a landlord electing to pursue such an aggressive course of action and, as always, even if the landlord proceeds correctly there will still be issues of proof. However, everything has its place, and if the circumstances support such an action, a “self help” eviction may be utilized without penalty.


Shepard A. Federgreen is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Russ Bershad Featured in Real Estate Weekly's Industry Leaders Article

Russell Bershad, Co-Chair of the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, was featured as an Industry Leader in the August 25, 2010, issue of Real Estate Weekly.

Real Estate Weekly noted, “In one of the most challenging real estate environments in recent history, Bershad has expanded what is one of New Jersey's busiest regional practices.”

Real Estate Weekly, published weekly since 1954, reaches over 30,000 readers in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Long Island and Westchester. The publication is the key source for late-breaking news and recent developments affecting the commercial, residential and industrial markets. In addition, it publishes monthly supplements which focus on specific aspects of the real estate industry.


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Google, Google, Toil and Twitter, Facebook Burn and Jurors Babble - The Internet in the Courtroom

A Michigan court dismissed a juror who during the trial posted on Facebook, "gonna be fun to tell defendant they’re guilty." A New Jersey Appellate Court holds it is alright to google jurors’ names during jury selection. Carino v. Muenzen, App. Div. August 30, 2010. The upshot is that the internet is moving into the jury box.

In Carino, the plaintiff’s attorney used the court’s wi-fi to access the internet on his laptop. The court, ever hip, asked if he was googling the potential jurors. The trial court told him to put away the computer because he gave no notice he intended to google the jurors. The Appellate Court held it was an error, albeit a harmless one, to block the attorney from googling in the courtroom. The court noted that the trial court administrator had issued a press release announcing the wi-fi in the "Morris County Courthouse to maximize productivity for attorneys and other court users."

In an Arkansas court, a juror verdict was ultimately tossed out when it was discovered a juror tweeted during the trial that he hadn’t done much other than give away "TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money!"

Clearly, jurors, attorneys and courts are having to deal with social media and internet access in the courtroom. Courts will have to be more specific in their instructions to jurors on what "not discussing the case" means. While the Appellate Court upheld the right of the googling attorney to do so in court, it is not the best tactic. Most courts publish the array of jurors who may be available for trials in advance. See J. Klock, New Jersey Trial Practice, § 7.29 Volume 2E (West 2010) (can request general panel of jurors ten days before trial). It would be best to check on the jurors outside the court, as it is important to also look at the jurors and read their reactions to the voir dire.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Port Authority of NY and NJ Tries to Catch the Wind - and its Tax Credits

A bill that would add the Port District of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to the definition of “wind energy zones” in the newly adopted Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, was reported out of the Senate Budge and Appropriations Committee on September 13, 2010. The amendment would allow tax credits for qualified wind energy facilities in the Port District.

The Port District encompasses an area within a radius of about 25 miles of the Statue of Liberty. According to the committee statement, the bill would not affect the total amount of tax credits available for wind energy facilities. Of course, the addition of another wind energy zone could reduce the amount of tax credits available for other wind energy facilities.

There are currently three offshore wind projects underway off the coast of New Jersey.

The proponents of this bill and the Offshore Wind Economic Development Act are hoping that the development of wind energy facilities will not only lower dependence on fossil fuel energy sources, but lead to increased economic development activity, including ancillary component manufacturing.

Not everyone is a fan of wind energy. As reported in a previous blog wind projects have been the subject of protest, military concern and worry in the blogosphere.

As the committee statement noted, “it is too early to determine if, and to what degree, the development of wind energy projects will benefit the State’s economy.”


Susanne Peticolas is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

Green or Not to Green, That is the Question? Whether it is Nobler to Build a Green Building or Suffer the Ignominy of an Ungreen One

With energy costs high and the focus on combating global warming, there is an impetus toward encouraging the development of Green Buildings. Buildings account for 39% of the total energy usage in the U.S., two thirds of the electricity consumption and 1/8 of the water usage. Building codes, setting minimum standards for construction, now include standards for energy efficiency. Green Codes are creeping in.

New Jersey’s Energy Subcode requires that a building permit applicant show compliance as part of the application. This code applies to low-rise residential and commercial buildings Under the Energy Code Compliance and Residential Prescriptive Packages, see N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.15(f)1.vi and N.J.A.C. 5:23-3.18. Compliance must be with the Energy Subcode and the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) plus 20%. These are energy efficient standards for cooling and heating.

New York State has its Energy Conservation Construction Code of 2007 which is based on the 2004 IECC standards. This code becomes effective in December 2010. Pennsylvania has adopted Alternative Residential Energy Provisions 2009 based on 2009 IECC standards.

The traditional way of demonstrating compliance with an applicable energy code is to calculate the “U” (thermal transmittance) value of various building components, such as walls, floors, windows, etc. There are tools that assist a builder to perform these calculations and demonstrate compliance with the applicable energy code.

These tools include:

  1. Guidance on performing calculations in the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) Handbook of Fundamentals,
  2. RESCHECK SOFTWARE (these two apply for compliance for NY, NJ and PA),
  3. NJ Energy Star Homes, which involves registration in the program and inspection by the utility company, and
  4. Prescriptive packages for wooden constructed homes.

The first two tools are acceptable in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The last two relate to New Jersey alone.

In general, building codes have focused on energy efficiency alone, because lower energy usage is seen as the key to controlling carbon emissions as well as reducing costs over time. However, the Green building concept also involves other notions such as green roofs, hydroponics, reuse of water, less use of water, sewage treatment and other sustainable practices. Other trends could impact building codes in the future. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has determined that by 2012 a standard for biodiversity impacts should be adopted. Such new regulations would require companies to publish information concerning the companies’ environmental impacts.

This would require inventorying energy usage, fresh water usage, air emissions, waste practices, habitat destruction, thermal discharges not only for the company but for suppliers to the company. As a result green construction is becoming more than simply getting a handle on energy.

LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is not a building code itself, but a certification process based on building standards set by U.S. Green Building Council. The LEED certifications, which range from Platinum (the highest), to Gold, and Silver, are verified by independent third party verification. LEED points are awarded on a 100 point scale and weighted to reflect potential environmental impacts. The initiative seeks to lower operating costs, reduce waste, conserve water and energy, reduce greenhouse gases in order to qualify for credits, tax rebates and other incentives depending on the certification ranking.

There has been litigation over LEED. In Southern Builders, Inc v. Shaw, No. 19-c_07-11405 (Md. Somerset Co., filed February 7, 2007) a tax credit for a silver LEED certification which the developer claimed was worth $650,000 was at issue. The contractor was alleged to have built a substandard building which did not qualify for the tax credit. The case recently settled. However, it does point to the fact that owners, contractors and others have a lot at stake with such certifications.

Eventually, green codes will be adopted by states and code officials. Although LEED is one of the preeminent building certification systems, it is not officially adopted in the above states. Thus, it behooves the developer to choose a qualified Green Project Manager to insure that all interested parties understand what has to be achieved for the appropriate certification and environmental goals of the project. It is not enough to contract the risk to the contractor or subcontractor. Someone who is qualified should be hired to coordinate all levels of construction to insure that the appropriate tax credit, incentive or certification is achieved.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

 

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg Signs New Owner Disclosure Law

On September 8, 2010, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a new law  that will require owners of multiple dwellings to provide the New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD) with their names, business and residential addresses and telephone numbers on an annual basis. The law also requires all shareholders who hold at least 25% of a corporation, partnership or limited liability company to comply with the disclosure requirements as well. Finally, the law mandates that a U.S. postal service mail box can not be used as a valid address.

Mayor Bloomberg praised the law noting that it will be easier for HPD and tenants to contact landlords in instances of housing and building violations. Not surprisingly, however, building owners are opposed to the new law arguing that it is unnecessary in light of existing and less onerous registration requirements.

The new law will take effect on January 31, 2011, however, it may take at least six months for HPD to implement the new database, according to the Real Deal.

The Wait is Finally Over for New York Land Use and Environmental Practitioners ... The New Edition of the SEQRA Handbook Has Arrived

It has been almost two decades since the last edition of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) Handbook was released by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) Division of Environmental Permits. Despite significant amendments to the SEQR regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617 in January 1996 and tens of hundreds of cases of distinction on SEQR substance and procedure, many land use and environmental practitioners have been left to fend for themselves without up-to-date technical regulatory guidance from NYSDEC until now.

For those who are unfamiliar with the SEQR Handbook, it is a practical reference guide for agencies, project sponsors and the public with respect to the procedures prescribed by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. It has a user-friendly table of contents and each topic in the handbook is addressed through question and answer format. The questions range from basic information such as “What is the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB)?” to “How should a generic environmental impact statement (EIS) address required content differently than a site or project specific EIS?” In addition, the handbook provides a roadmap of the Part 617 SEQR Regulations before and after the 1996 Amendments and several helpful charts including one which shows all of the relevant steps in the SEQR process, the number of calendar days in which those steps must be addressed and provides citations to the section of the regulations that govern each step. Although not available in hard copy, a .pdf version of the SEQR Handbook is available for download or printing from NYSDEC’s website. Get your copy today by clicking here.


Jennifer M. Porter is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property and Environmental Department.

Ye Shall Have No Wine Before It's Time - New York Federal District Court Dismisses Winery's Claims on Ripeness Grounds for Failure to Obtain a Variance Decision or Provide Sufficient Proof That Efforts to Obtain a Variance Would Be Futile

Despite potential substantive merit to Plaintiffs’ federal and state constitutional claims, the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York in Rivendell Winery LLC v. Town of New Paltz dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on ripeness grounds as a result of the Plaintiffs’ failure to either obtain a final variance decision or to satisfy the relatively high burden for showing that an application for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would have been futile. The crux of the decision lies in the Court’s reiteration of an important principle that although the success of a land use application may seem doubtful, doubt alone is insufficient to establish that the decision maker has dug in its heels and made certain that the application will be denied. As such, absent facts establishing that a final decision was obtained or that seeking a decision would be futile, constitutionally-based claims or challenges to other pre-decision actions taken by a governmental agency or its officers or employees may not be ripe for adjudication.

In this case, the Plaintiffs, Rivendell Winery, LLC and its principal owner, Susan L. Wine, had sought to reopen a winery and grape-growing business and had acquired two parcels of land in the Town of New Paltz, New York for this purpose. The property was located in the A-1.5 Zoning District which permits agricultural uses as of right. Although the term “agricultural” is not defined under the zoning definition section of the Town of New Paltz Town Code, it is defined elsewhere in zoning provisions as:

[a]ll agricultural operations and activities related to the growing or raising of crops, livestock, or livestock products, and agricultural products, as such terms are defined in or governed by the Agriculture and Markets Law of the State of New York on land qualified under Ulster County and NYS law for an agricultural exemption by the Assessor of the Town of New Paltz.

Plaintiffs submitted an application to the Ulster County Legislature seeking to include the two parcels of land in Ulster County Agricultural District No. 2 and filed an application with the Town Planning Board seeking approval of Plaintiffs’ proposed use of the property within the A-1.5 zoning district.

The Town Building Inspector

Although Plaintiffs had received prior confirmation from the Planning Board Chairperson that the proposed use was “agricultural” and therefore permissible, the Town’s Building Inspector visited the premises and issued a letter to the Planning Board concluding that although the winery is permissible, the retail sale of wine from the house would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals since the Town Code only permits the retail sale of agricultural products grown on the same lot from a road stand. Despite this determination, the Building Inspector later changed his determination finding that the winery was not a permissible agricultural use, and therefore a variance must be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”).

More bad news followed when Plaintiffs withdrew their application after being contacted by a representative of the Ulster County Legislature that suggested they withdraw their application due to public opposition despite a favorable recommendation from the Ulster County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board. Plaintiffs believed the actions of Building Inspector were the result of undue influence by the Ulster County District Attorney for his own personal and economic reasons and that the action by the legislative representative was motivated by similar reasoning.

The ZBA

Plaintiffs appealed the determination of the Building Inspector to the ZBA. Plaintiffs submitted various documents in support of their appeal, including:

  • a favorable letter from the New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets confirming that the proposed use of the property constituted a “farm operation,”
  • a determination from the Town Assessor that nine acres of Plaintiffs property would qualify for an agricultural exemption and
  • a favorable interpretation from the Ulster County Planning Board.

Despite this documentation, the ZBA unanimously voted to deny Plaintiffs’ appeal. Plaintiffs challenged the ZBA’s decision in an Article 78 proceeding that was unsuccessful at both the Supreme Court and later at the Appellate Division, Third Department.

The Federal Court Filing

Plaintiffs subsequently commenced suit in federal court alleging numerous constitutional violations including:

  • a violation of their federal right to petition the government for the redress of grievances,
  • procedural and substantive due process violations and
  • equal protection violations.

The Defendants, which were comprised of the Town of New Paltz, the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of New Paltz and its individual members, as well as Susan Zimet, a representative in the Ulster County Legislature and The County of Ulster, moved to dismiss Plantiffs’ complaint. In light of the legal principles set forth above, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss since Plaintiffs had failed to apply for a variance from the ZBA to permit the proposed winery and associated sale of wine.

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that just like grapes need to be ripened for wine, so too must claims be ripened prior to being adjudicated. No matter how doubtful a favorable decision may appear to be, in order for claims to be ripe for review, it is critical that a final decision first be obtained or that facts be plead to overcome the high burden of establishing that such an application would have been futile. Luckily for Plaintiffs, all is not lost. The Court dismissed their claims without prejudice to their right to refile in the event they are unsuccessful in their variance application.


Jennifer M. Porter is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property and Environmental Department.

No Room at the Inn - New York Closes the Door on Illegal Hotels

On July 23, 2010, Governor David Patterson signed into law, legislation that amends the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law to define permanent and transient occupancy. The new illegal hotel law forbids most residential apartment units to be rented out for stays less than 30 days.

This legislation may be a reaction to City of New York v. 330 Continental LLC, a 2009 Appellate Division - First Department holding, which relied on the fact that the critical terms “transient” and “permanent” are not defined in either the Multiple Dwelling Law or the New York City Zoning Resolution. The ambiguity created by this omission has hindered the City of New York from taking enforcement actions against illegal hotels, a problem in New York City, where landlords have been able to convert vacant apartments into temporary housing for tourists, a practice made easier by internet advertising. According to the law’s co-sponsor, State Senator Liz Krueger, over 300 New York apartment buildings had such temporary rental rooms.

Mayor Bloomberg praised the new law, stating:

When housing designated for permanent occupancy is illegally converted into a hotel, unsafe conditions are created, the residential character of City neighborhoods is harmed and the supply of much-needed units of housing is depleted. The bill provides a clear definition of what constitutes transient and permanent occupancy, which will allow City agencies to issue summonses and initiate other enforcement actions against illegal hotels.

Governor Patterson also touted the new law, noting, “By removing a legal gray area and replacing it with a clear definition of permanent occupancy, the law will allow enforcement efforts that help New Yorkers who live in SRO units and other types of affordable housing preserve their homes.”

There was some opposition to the bill, including a demonstration. Those opposing the bill claimed that in a poor economy such rentals were the only way tourists of modest means could afford to visit the city and a source of needed income by desperate apartment owners.

Illegal hotels are widespread and highly profitable. Thus, it remains to be seen what practical impact this legislation will have on the industry. Only time will tell.

New York Land Use Litigants Beware Injunctive Relief Must Be Sought to Preserve the Status Quo While an Appeal is Pending

In Matter of John G. Molloy, et al, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department reminds us that it is critical to preserve the status quo during the pendency of an appeal by moving for a preliminary injunction. Failure to do so resulted in the dismissal of an Article 78 proceeding challenging the grant of a use variance by the Town of Carmel Zoning Board of Appeals to the Putnam Arts Council, a not-for-profit organization, permitting it to operate in a residential zone. Appellants’ failure to preserve their rights during appellate review allowed construction of the new arts center to be completed and a certificate of occupancy to be issued thereby resulting in dismissal of the appeal as academic when it was eventually heard by the Appellate Division.


Jennifer M. Porter is an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property and Environmental Department.

New York City Increases Penalties for Illegal Dumping

On March 3 the City Council of New York approved legislation designed to deter illegal dumping into the city's waterways. The measure increases the maximum penalty for illegally dumping such materials as dirt, sludge, acid, or any other "refuse matters" from $250 to $10,000 for a first violation and $20,000 for subsequent violations.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department.

How Dirty Is Dirty? Court of Appeals Says Even Minimally Contaminated Sites Can Qualify for New York Redevelopment Incentives

The tables were turned in a case decided by the New York Court of Appeals on February 18. In a reversal of their usual roles, an upstate developer argued that its properties were contaminated, while the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) argued that the sites did not require remediation. The court agreed with the developer, and the result could mean significant tax credits for potential redevelopers of contaminated sites throughout the state.

The complete article, as published in In-Sites, can be viewed here.


John H. Klock is a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department. Paul M. Hauge, an Associate in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, assisted in the preparation of this post.