Crain’s Business: Extell Development
- Posted on:
Crain’s Business: Marc Held, Partner at Held & Hines, LLP is quoted re: Extell Development
Extell, Carlyle hope 4th time will be lucky
The twin developers of the Upper West Side’s Rushmore go back to court, again, to block a decision by the attorney general that would force them to make city’s biggest-ever condo refund. Print Email Reprints Comment By Amanda Fung @amandafung February 15, 2012 3:57 p.m. inShare1 The battle over $16 million in deposits between 40 condo buyers at The Rushmore and the project’s developers, Extell Development Co. and Carlyle Realty Partners, rages on—and on, and on. In an effort to avoid what would be the largest condo refund in New York history, the developers went to court Tuesday to attempt to overturn a 2010 decision by the New York state attorney general. He ordered the Rushmore’s developers to refund the buyers’ down payments on units at the Rushmore after the developers of the Upper West Side tower missed the deadline to close the sale of the units. The appeal was filed in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York for the First Judicial Department on Feb. 14, according to a court filing. The developers have already lost appeals in three other courts. The New York County Supreme Court rejected the developers appeal just last month. The developers said the New York County Supreme Court “erred for reasons which include not to consider extrinsic evidence of the intent of the parties,” according to the filing. They also said they should have had a right to discovery and evidentiary hearing.
Edward Normand and Jason Cyrulnik of the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner, which represents the developers, did not immediately comment. Two years ago, the state attorney general ruled that the developers had to return deposits to 40 condo buyers at the 289-unit development at 80 Riverside Boulevard because they missed the Sept. 1, 2008, closing date deadline cited on the condo offering plan. Collectively, 40 buyers made $16 million in deposits on units, which had sold for more than $110 million. The developers said the deadline date was a typo on the part of their attorneys at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, a “scrivener’s error,” and the actual date was Sept. 1, 2009. The first apartment sale took place on Feb. 12, 2009, according to court filings. “The appeal does not appear to have any merit. The purchasers will likely be successful, for the fifth time, in the Appellate Division,” said Marc Held of the law firm of Lazarowitz & Manganillo, who represents one of the buyers in this case. “Every court in this case has agreed that purchasers have a right to rely on the written terms of a contract and that the sponsor is responsible to comply with the very terms he unilaterally drafted.”
