Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Reader report: Large portfolio of East Village buildings ready to change hands


[233-235 E. 5th St.]

We've heard from several residents in recent weeks about the impending sale of several buildings on East Fifth Street between Second Avenue and Cooper Square.

Here's part of an email from one of the residents:

My building, like four others on the block (223, 229, 231, 233 and 235), is owned by Morton Tabak and Co. LLC. When I originally rented the apartment, I rented it from Morton Tabak himself, who was a very nice man and a decent landlord. Several years ago, his family took over the management of the building, at which point they switched the ownership to the LLC. They're not as nice as Mr. Tabak was, but there have been no major problems dealing with them.

Twice now in the past few weeks there have been notices posted near our mailboxes mentioning the "sale" of the Tabak buildings on Fifth Street and inviting tenants to meetings about it.

Now a tipster tells us that the East Fifth Street buildings are part of a larger portfolio that's changing hands.

Here's some preliminary information from the tipster:

The Tabak family is currently in the process of selling 17 of their buildings — most of them in the East Village. The buyer is Brook Hill Properties/Goldmark Property Management. As of now we are not aware of any official closings.

However, some tenants have already been contacted by Brook Hill Properties introducing themselves as the new landlord. They are measuring apartments and taking photos of people’s spaces. In addition, an official letter was emailed to some tenants announcing the transfer of "management and ownership" to Brook Hill Properties.

At the same time many tenants are being told that this is only a transition in management. The whole process has been opaque and extremely disorganized.

Goldmark Property Management made headlines in the spring when residents at 444 E. 13th St. claimed that the company "has waged a campaign of harassment aimed at driving them out of their rent-regulated apartments," according to published reports. A staff attorney at the Urban Justice Center, who is representing the East 13th Street tenants, told reporters that "there are tape recorded conversations where the landlord is threatening to drop dynamite on the building and then let everyone 'figure it out themselves.'"

Have more information on what's going on with the Tabak-owned buildings? Please hit us up via email.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

I heard that some buildings on E. 12th are part of the deal too...
and there was a meeting sponsored by GOLES to help tenants (that was last evening.) Perhaps you could reach out to them for more info.

-- a former Tabak tenant ;-)

Anonymous said...

The neighborhood is under siege by real estate developers. Your first line of defense is stalling and this might help:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/2491.pdf
Your buildings are landmarked.

Anonymous said...

A number of buildings on E. 7th Street are also part of the deal. The building I live in is one of them.

Anonymous said...

My super was talking about a building on 12th Street between A and B that is nearly devoid of tenants now. Does anyone know which building it is and what the deal is?

Anonymous said...

Which buildings on E.7th Street are you talking about???

EV Grieve said...

I have a list of the buildings ... I'm still checking on them, though. However, there aren't any buildings from East Seventh Street listed in this portfolio.

I'll take that rent check thank you ... said...

Having seen many of these "Hi, we are your new landlord" letters I wonder if there is some legal requirement for the new landlord to prove to the tenants that they are indeed the landlord now and that it's not just some scammer saying "mail me your rent checks".

Yes, I know, it's probably not a scam, but I'd hope that just the way a tenant must prove identity to a landlord (driver's licence, often social security number, etc.), a landlord should be required to prove their identity to the tenant.

Is there such a law?

Anonymous said...

Go to acris (google Acris and "new york") and you can search by address and then you can see who owns your building. If your building is still owned by a Tabak family member then don't start sending checks to anyone who claims to be your new landlord. If there is a new management company who will be handling your building then Tabak should be informing you of that in writing. I spoke with Janet (Tabak's daughter) yesterday and she said she would be sending out a letter in the next few days about buildings that would have new management.

Gojira said...

And the shell game continues, seemingly never to end.

Anonymous said...

@9:59 - What does Landmark status have to do with the sales of buildings?

Anonymous said...

TENANTS RIGHTS MEETING WEDNESDAY goles is having another meeting at there space Wednesday August 5th at 6:30pm 169 ave b

Anonymous said...

Landmarking a building raises its value, putting more pressure on low-rent-paying tenants.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 8:24 pm Interested in why you wrote Landmarking a building increases its value when in fact it destroys air rights. Landmarked properties have to pay more for repairs and more paperwork involved so higher costs of doing business. Could you elucidate on your point? Want to understand.

Anonymous said...

Landmarking a building can in fact reduce development pressure, preserving affordable units, because by more-or-less "freezing" a building in its current configuration (# of stories), there is no incentive to knock it down and build again (in which case you lose any affdable units inside).

Example: Unlandmarked, 4-story bldg in E.V. containing rent-stabilized units. Zoning allows 8 stories. Owner uses legal means (including waiting) to get bldg empty of tenants. Knocks it down to build more-profitable, 8-story building, with NO rent-regulated units.

nygrump said...

release the tapes - that is a threat of terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Remember that when the CB voted to approve Landmarking both they and the esteemed Councilmember said it would help protect tenants.

In the meantime, small property owners were clearly stating that it would increase pressure on them to sell.

Looks like the landlords spoke the truth.

Anonymous said...

@7:44 -- the Tabak family has quite a large portfolio of buildings throughout Manhattan. They may not be the largest, but they aren't really small landlords. The elder brothers (Morton and Bernard) had a long run... presume this has to do with younger family members wishing to get out of the business entirely (!?)

-- a former Tabak building resident

Anonymous said...

Small property owners get screwed by landmarking. Yes you 'freeze' a building with RS units. Property taxes, maintainance, and all others costs never freeze in NYC. Its lowers the value, destroys the air rights. If you are a small time property owner you sell if you think there is any chance of landmarking.
The big landlords have the money and patience to eventually make money when the building doesnt get landmarked and they can legally clear the building. There are always reactions to these laws.

Anonymous said...

95 East 7th Street the building I was referencing, that I am certain is part of the deal. Janet sent out the letter to building tenants earlier this morning.

Anonymous said...

The big landlords also have the money to deal with the LPC procedures - one manual is 248 pages and the other is some 160 - you can't even change the exterior Light fixtures without a process.

Even if it is broken

Anonymous said...

66 E. 7th Street is definitely on the chopping block. We received a letter from Janet Garfinkel today.

Anonymous said...

Would anyone consider posting a letter so that those of us who haven't received one know what's going on? There's so many rumors and not a lot of hard information.

EV Grieve said...

I've seen several different lists with addresses... I'm still trying to figure out which ones are part of the sale...

Anonymous said...

Be careful w/ large meetings. New owners routinely imbed their own people at those meetings to get info.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know who is brokering this sale?

Anonymous said...

How many of the supposed tenants actually live in these buildings. Many have been illegally subletting for many years. And you know who you are. I have lived there forever and have had no problems with Mr Tabak or his family. Many long time owners are selling because of severe regulations that the city has put on property owners

Anonymous said...

I am a tenant at 327E.12th The tabaks are jerks there nothing like Morton and toledano and his team are knocking door to door offering tenants 10,000 to 70,000 dollars in cash to vacate their main objective is to get every single tenant out of every building management is calling lying saying that insurance companies are coming to look at the apartment to take measurements for renovations. The Tabak previous broker Michelle has let us know that they have cut her out of every deal and fired her as the broker when they found out the plans of Toledano.