Freddy’s Gets Eviction Letter from Bruce

At the end of the day on Friday, the Village Voice reported that Freddy’s Bar & Back Room, which has served as the official watering hole of the anti-Atlantic Yards movement, had received an official eviction notice to vacate the premises within 30 days. A regular, however, clarified the situation in the comments section: “Freddy’s got something that was meant to look like an eviction notice. But it was just a trick by the developer. An actual eviction notice is a legal document (last night’s letter was not) from the court (this was from Ratner’s lawyers) and served by a process server (last night’s letter came by courier.)” When the bar eventually does have to close, as seems inevitable at this point, manager Donald O’Finn hopes to reopen elsewhere.
Freddy’s Gets Evicted, Vows to Return [Village Voice]
Freddy’s Bar – Heads Roll in Survival Fight [Brownstoner]
Freddy’s Welcomes a Chain Gang [Brownstoner]
Photo by f.trainer

0 Comment

  • So, if this was a fake notice from Ratner’s group, put on city letterhead with signatures and/or logos, I’d think there’d be a criminal case here on some sort of grounds (fraud? forgery? not sure what).

  • Of course you know, this means war.

  • BSD — I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is a fraudulent document. It is probably a real letter really written by an FCR attorney. The issue is probably nmroe about the legal steps that must be taken before there is actually an eviction. I don’t know the rules on commercial tenants, but I imagine FCR can’t go to court and seek an actual order evicting Freddy’s without giving some kind of notice and deadline first, and serving that notice on a proper person. Whether FCR’s notice is good or can be contested will be an issue for the court to resolve, although I can’t imagine it, or any subsequent notice or court order, requries a process server. Foolish not to use one, however, if service is going to be contested.

  • There is, no doubt, the difference between a misleading letter and a fraudalent one. Nowhere is there any indication that this letter was a forgery, only that it was not the legal trigger which would advance an adversarial eviction.

  • Jinx — you owe me a coke, pd.

  • that’s funny. let’s believe the *regular.* what time did the vv visit? 11a. was the *regular* sober?

    or we can assume a company that has a lot of money on the line resorted to a fraudulent, threatening, premature letter to get them out instead of waiting for the process — the same process they’ve won– to run its course in a matter of days/weeks.

  • The letter was from Berger & Webb representing the ESDC. It is not an eviction notice. It was not from Forest City, and nobody claimed it was a forgery. But rather, it is no legal bearing.

    Eviction is a legal procedure, with legal notice and court involvement, not something done by attorney letters.

  • DDDB:

    The ESDC now owns the property, and in so doing the lease is void. As Freddy’s (or whomever the tenant is) no longer has a leasehold to the property, the standard 30-day notice applies just as if you had a month-to-month tenant in your apartment or house.

    Berger & Webb has given them that notice.

    If the don’t leave after 30 days, then eviction proceedings will begin.

    In any event, your legalistic quibbling does not change the fact that they have to leave. Soon.

  • I’ve always jokingly questioned the sanity of the anti-Ratner crowd, but reading the following excerpt from the above-noted article has caused me to harbor some serious doubts about their grip on reality:

    “But it was just a trick by the developer. Which is good. This means he is getting desperate. Ratner may well soon be facing jail time for a bribe his company allegedly paid in Yonkers, NY. The bribee is under indictment, but Ratner, to date, is not. What this indicates to me is that law enforcement is closing in on Ratner – they already have the paychecks his company issued that are the money part of the alleged bribe.”

    Truly unhinged and a classic case of projection.

  • Polemicist, you wrote about our “quibbling” which is an odd thing for a polemicist to say. But anyway, it is not “quibbling.” The lawyers letter has zero legal bearing. And as the VV article said “received an official eviction notice,” that is 100% entirely incorrect.

    You wrote, “If they don’t leave after 30 days, then eviction proceedings will begin.” That is also incorrect. End of 30-day meaning less notice does not start eviction proceedings.

    Anyway, the letter sent to all those who remain in the footprint is called intimidation.

  • But Polemicist’s final comment is “entirely 100% CORRECT”. And there’s nothing that you or anyone can do about it as this point.