Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Citation
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Parent Document
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2016-12-28
Other Sections in This Document (77)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8831 (2016)
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 5
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
- Section 2520
Full Text
1,165 charsAccording to the affidavit of the defendant’s manager, Eugene Mendlowits, after the defendant purchased the premises in 1999, the defendant spent approximately $3.5 million “constructing and/or rehabilitating” the complex in order to transform it from commercial to residential use. This work was performed in two phases. During Phase I, which took place between November 1999 and July 2000, the defendant subdivided the previously open floor plan in one wing of the complex in order to create 40 1,000-square-foot commercial loft units. According to Mendlowits, the defendant constructed all of the interior walls that separated the individual units, installed new interior doors and intercoms for each of the 40 units, and installed windows, bathrooms, kitchens, and a refrigerator in each of the units, although stoves were not provided. As part of the Phase I work, the defendant also created brand new plumbing, heating, electrical, ventilation, gas supply, and sprinkler systems. Beginning in July 2000, the defendant began to rent these 40 units out to tenants via commercial leases. Most, if not all, of these units were initially used as artist workplaces.