
Yesterday's NY Times real estate section had the dishy but ultimately depressing article about men who buy pied-a-terres for their affairs. Gothamist was struck by two quote:
1) "In the movie 'Pretty Woman,' she only wanted to get married, but a lot of the pretty women in New York really only want a condo," said Michele Kleier, president of Gumley Haft Kleier, who has brokered her share of such transactions, typically condominiums in the $2 million to $3 million range.Gothamist knows this stuff happens, but reading this article, we actually felt like the women's lib movement was taking two steps back. Plus, there was no word on whether or not the mistresses got to keep the condos. And God help us, did you realize that there was a special 10th anniversary edition of Pretty Woman?
2) Norman Horowitz, at Halstead, further emphasizing the typical mistress profile: "The women were in their late 20's, very good looking, with no particular skill set."





In the turn-about-is-fair-play category, Paul Varjak was quite the apt.-whore in Breakfast at Tiffany's. As for "no particular skill set", I'm sure these women's benefactors could think of some, but none that were worth mentioning on a PG-rated site, or in The New York Times.
I practiced divorce law in NYC. This is so common it's crazy.
What the article neglected to mention is that what can get really ugly is when the mistress and the guy break up and she wants the apartment. He should just hand it over as the damage she can potentially do most likely far outweighs the cost of even the most well-appointed condo.
Not a big deal for the guy considering that those who could afford to pay such amounts seldom do it from their personal funds, it goes from expense accounts, and ultimately it is us shareholders who pick up the tab. How many guys could spend $3 mil of family budget without being noticed as if it were mere $3.