Crain’s Business: The Rushmore Condominium
- Posted on:
Crain’s Business: Marc Held, Partner at Held & Hines, LLP is quoted regarding the Rushmore Condominium
Rushmore’s monumental legal woes mount Developers of the luxury Upper West Side condo were hit with another lawsuit Monday, months after New York’s attorney general ordered them to make $16 million in refunds.
By Amanda Fung @amandafung August 21, 2012 12:09 p.m.
PropertyShark.com [+] Enlarge The plaintiff in the latest lawsuit, Chris Bevilacqua, who was in contract to buy a $3.5 million apartment at The Rushmore, at 80 Riverside Blvd., accuses the developers of breach of contract, fraud and intentionally failing to disclose information to him, according to the court filing. The two developers of The Rushmore, a luxury condominium development on the Upper West Side were hit with yet another lawsuit Monday, this time by an individual. The duo, Extell Development Co. and Carlyle Realty Partners, has appealed a 2010 decision by the New York state attorney general that would require them to return $16 million in deposits—the largest refund in New York history—to 40 condo unit buyers at the property. The plaintiff in the latest lawsuit, Chris Bevilacqua, who was in contract to buy a $3.5 million apartment at The Rushmore, at 80 Riverside Blvd. at West 64th Street, accuses the developers of breach of contract, fraud and intentionally failing to disclose information to him, according to the court filing. He claims that his purchase contract gave him the right to rescind it and to receive his $525,000 deposit back. The reason, Mr. Bevilacqua says in the suit, is that the developers failed to disclose “all material changes including, not limited to… any lawsuit, administrative proceedings or other proceedings the outcome of which may materially affect the offering, the property, the rights of the unit owners…” in The Rushmore’s offering plan to potential buyers. Mr. Bevilacqua is seeking $525,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.
The suit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York. “Mr. Bevilacqua plans to hold the defendants and their principals accountable for the false and improper certifications made under the contract and offering plan as more particularly described in the lawsuit,” said Marc Held of the law firm of [Held & Hines, LLP], the plaintiff’s attorney. A spokesman for Gary Barnett’s Extell said the company does not comment on pending litigation. Among the things the developers withheld from the plaintiff, the suit says, are other lawsuits against the developers, and Extell’s financial delinquency on other Manhattan properties. “Had the defendants been honest and given full disclosure to me as they were obligated to do, I would have never entered into this contract,” Mr. Bevilacqua said in a statement. Two years ago, Mr. Bevilacqua attempted to get his deposit back on the unit under similar claims, but the attorney generals office denied his claims determining that “purchaser is not entitled to rescission because he released Sponsor from any such obligation when he entered into the agreement… Under New York law, a contract for the sale of real property that expressly provides that a seller may retain a down payment as liquidated damages is enforceable.” The 289-unit Rushmore has been plagued by legal wranglings. In 2010, the developers were ordered to refund 40 condo buyers a total of $16 million because they missed the Sept. 1, 2008 closing date deadline cited in the condo offering plan. The developers argued that the deadline date was a typo on the part of their attorneys at Stroock & Stroock & Laven, and the actual date was Sept. 1, 2009. Earlier this year, the developers filed an appeal in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the state of New York for the First Judicial Department to avoid paying the refund—it was their fourth appeal. The decision on that appeal is still pending.
