Boymelgreen-Ratner Deal on Pacific Was Indeed "Improper"
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling that declared a lease deal between the developers Shaya Boymelgreen and Forest City Ratner improper was upheld yesterday by an Appeals Court in Brooklyn. The ruling in the original case, 752 Pacific, LLC v. Pacific Carlton Development Corp., found that Boymelgreen had violated the terms on his original lease at…
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling that declared a lease deal between the developers Shaya Boymelgreen and Forest City Ratner improper was upheld yesterday by an Appeals Court in Brooklyn. The ruling in the original case, 752 Pacific, LLC v. Pacific Carlton Development Corp., found that Boymelgreen had violated the terms on his original lease at 752 Pacific Street (which has another 39 years left on it) by failing to obtain written consent from the landlord before entering into a sub-lease agreement with Ratner. Now the question is what the impact of the appellate ruling will be.
Appellate Division Agrees, One Ratner Lease Is Void [Brooklyn Eagle]
Judge Rules Ratner Obtained Properties Illegally [Brownstoner]
the bigger picture: Boymelgreen and Ratner and the ESDC colluded to get a foothold on this property for Ratner w/o even using eminent domain in what turns out to be an illegal assignment.
it’s the collusion, silly.
smeyer418- I know. I strongly believe the original intent of eminent domain was never meant for a private developer and I believe even more strongly the Supreme Court is weighted with political hacks who care more about their CEO friends than they do about the Constitution.
hey BXgrl both the Federal courts and the state courts so far has said its ok for the ESDC to use eminent domain on FCR behalf. So did the case up in New London. The US Supreme Court says its ok and NY state has one of the broadest eminent domain laws. The Federal case is over. All that is left is a state court decision and most people think the fix is in on that one….
While I agree with you it may be legalized theft so far the courts have agreed that the state can do it and benefit a private developer….
which is why eminent domain for the benefit of a private developer should be illegal. FCR can’t even keep it’s promises to the MTA- if they don’t have the funds to go forward, why should they have the right to eminent domain? And even if they did have the funds- so what? Ratner using emeninet domain is basically legalized theft, IMHO.
it voids the assignment and even if it voids the lease, FCR can use the state’s eminent domain right to get the property. The one who loses out is Boymelgreen.
The State notifies the property owner and says here is x money. If the property owner refuses the money(or says its insufficient) is paid into court, the property is taken and the property owner and the State get to argue what the value should be with the court deciding if the state should pay more-but the property is transferred for the state to do as it pleases….
Lease-violating deal btw Boy.& Ratner was an attempted assignment, which was struck down quickly by State Supreme Court and now upheld unanimously by Appelate Division. A slam-dunk win for owner. Origingal long-term boymelgreen lease now void and latter’s offices can be evicted! I imagine FCity may appeal to Court of Appeals but on what grounds could they win…..