However, this development doesn't completely shut the door on the most recent tenant — Pinky's Space, the cafe-art gallery that has been closed since late last fall.
Earlier this spring, the landlord took legal possession of the storefront, where Pinky's Space first opened in 2018 as a quick-serve cafe offering a variety of sandwiches served on biscuits.
Co-owner Wesley Wobles said in an email over the weekend that the landlord would let them return if they made good on the back rent that dates to October.
"She will welcome us back if we can pay back the rent in full before she rents the space," Wobles said.
The financial tailspin began for Pinky's this past Oct. 27 when the city leveled their 30-foot-long outdoor structure, which had morphed into an assemblage of paintings, furniture and plants — topped off by a chandelier and disco ball.
At the time, co-owner Mimi Blitz reportedly (per the Post) estimated they spent upwards of $50,000 on the structure and used it for outdoor dining and other events that served as the main source of pandemic-era revenue since July 2020. (Initial reports put the value at $25,000, but Blitz told the Post that the amount was incorrect because "everything had happened so fast she didn't have time to calculate properly.")
After the city took down the structure, Pinky's closed to regroup with plans to reopen in early 2023. They also created a less-intricate outdoor space, which has mostly been dismantled recently.
"We spent the last of our money to rebuild our outdoor garden right away. The electric bill came, and we couldn't afford it," Wobles said. "We have no money coming in because we shut the business down after our outdoor dining structure was torn down by the DOT."
In January, Wobles and Blitz sued the city for $615,000 for removing the curbside space last fall "without any warning whatsoever" and "without cause, legal authority or due process," per the lawsuit. (The story was well-covered, including at the Post, 1010 WINS and PIX11.)
The city tells a different story, as Gothamist reported in January.
A DOT spokesman told Gothamist that Blitz's outdoor dining structure was too far off the curb, lacked "reflective materials" and was not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was also covering a manhole, the spokesman said.According to the lawsuit, Pinky's received two cease and desist orders of compliance regarding the outdoor structure and made the requested changes on each occasion. The owners claimed they were never told their structure was dangerous and would be taken down."There was no communication in regards to saying, 'Look, this is an imminent danger. We're going to have to just sweep it away and take it away,'" Blitz said. "So we were completely caught off guard when that happened."
Meanwhile, the financial struggles continue. One source of income: selling art and accessories via the Pinky's Space website. "The clothing line is something that we have begun since we have been locked out," Wobles said. "It's print-on-demand items designed using the art we created at Pinky's Space."
In recent months, Wobles said that he and Blitz, who have an 8-year-old son, have tried to apply for several loans, including the New York Forward Loan Fund.
"Those applications take forever," he said. "We spent weeks working on them only to get denied, which was depressing."
Wobles said that he is on food stamps and has been visiting a church food bank to help feed his son. He said there's also a "real possibility" of being evicted from his apartment.
"The city just doesn't understand. They shut you down like that and expect you to just change everything. It's a tornado. It's not fair. It's not right," he said. "I worked my whole life as a chef in New York City restaurants and made a lot of people money. There's no reason it should be like this."
3 comments:
And once again we'll ask: how did you survive before outdoor dining was created?
Doesn't sound like they have a viable business, nor a viable business plan.
They've claimed the cost of their original dining shed, in different interviews they've given, as being wildly varying amounts of money, ranging from $15,000 to $90,000, IIRC.
They still somehow had money to pay a lawyer to sue the city, and to erect ANOTHER shed after the first one was removed.
Blocking the manhole cover is a problem. I've seen sidewalk sheds that had to cut wood quickly when confronted. In general, with any establishment much less a sidewalk shed, when the city gets in touch and says "jump" the only real response is "how high?" They got a list of violations and didn't address them.
Post a Comment