The Daily Dirt: Eliot Spitzer is once again fighting Adam Leitman Bailey over his condo project

"The 46-unit rental building has six rent-stabilized units, which means Spitzer needs approval from the Department of Homes and Community Renewal to demolish the building. Spitzer submitted demolition applications for each tenant to DHCR in May 2024. But at the end of February this year, Leitman Bailey submitted an emergency complaint to DHCR on behalf of one tenant, Stephanie Phillips, claiming that she received a lease renewal on February 6."

"The complaint states that three days later, two men confronted this 89-year-old woman and demanded that she surrender the lease renewal offer, claiming it had been sent by mistake. Leitman Bailey claims that once a landlord sends an offer to renew to a rent-stabilized tenant, it is binding and irrevocable during the tenant's acceptance period, according to New York law."

"Last year, Leitman Bailey's office submitted letters to DHCR claiming that Spitzer's demolition application was faulty because it didn't provide proof of the developer's ability to pay for the tenants' relocation. The attorney's office also claimed the developer didn't account for how an open mortgage on the property might affect its financial ability to move forward with the demolition without rental income."

Eliot Spitzer is developing a luxury condominium project to replace a 46-unit rental building at 985 Fifth Avenue that his father built in 1970. The project has received Landmarks Preservation Commission approval twice and survived an adverse possession lawsuit. However, the building contains six rent-stabilized units, requiring Department of Homes and Community Renewal approval for demolition. Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, representing tenant Stephanie Phillips, filed an emergency complaint alleging that after the 89-year-old tenant received a lease renewal offer in February, two men demanded she surrender it, claiming it was sent by mistake. Leitman Bailey argues the lease renewal is binding and irrevocable under New York law. This represents the latest legal challenge to the project, following previous complaints about insufficient proof of relocation funding and mortgage concerns.

Read at therealdeal.com