AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
New York City zoning laws are confusing. But there are questions about whether a condo seller and her real estate brokerage misled a couple into thinking they were getting a three-bedroom home, when the apartment technically only has one bedroom.
The dispute: The Post reports that Valery and Revital Joseph bought a 3,000 square foot apartment at 354 Broadway from fashion designer Cynthia Rowley. The home cost $2.3 million and was advertised a three-bedroom by Corcoran, but two of the so-called bedrooms have "windows on the lot line - the wall adjoining the edge of the property." And calling a room with lot-line windows a bedroom is illegal, because, as the Real Deal explains, "a bedroom to legally be a bedroom, it has to meet certain size requirements and have a legal window -- that is, a window the overlooks the street or a courtyard." In fact, some lot-line windows don't even open and have fireproof glass.
The Josephs sued Rowley and Corcoran on the grounds that if they resell the apartment, they can't call it a three-bedroom and might lose money. The NY State appeals court (the highest in the state) unanimously voted to allow the lawsuit to go forward, with Justice David Friedman writing, "Questions of fact exist as to whether the brokers, individually and as agents for the seller, materially misrepresented the number of legal bedrooms."
If this goes to court, it'll be interesting how the apartment as a 3,000-square-foot one-bedroom would be appraised. The Post adds that Rowley had offered to buy back the apartment, but since the Josephs have settled in with their children already, they didn't want to uproot again. And Corcoran's lawyer says, "It's very easily discoverable and any attorney representing a client purchasing an apartment would determine whether this was indeed a legal bedroom."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
what a lame-ass quote from corcoran:
It's very easily discoverable and any attorney representing a client purchasing an apartment would determine whether this was indeed a legal bedroom.
in other words, we can and will lie our asses off and it's up to you to figure it out.
real estate brokers are scum.
The Post reports that Valery and Revital Joseph bought a 3,000 apartment at 354 Broadway from fashion designed Cynthia Rowley. The home cost $2.3 million and was advertised a three-bedroom by Corcoran, but two of the so-called bedrooms has "windows on the lot line - the wall adjoining the edge of the property."
3000sq feet?
designer?
bedrooms have?
wow, what awful writing.
#2: Wow. What awful commenting. You loser.
Do NYC a favor and take away Corcoran's license!
Tis true #2 that Jen is a writerly hack, but she surely doth have a beautiful rack.
A) It's called the "New York Court of Appeals."
B) Did they buy the place sight unseen? Surely they knew what the bedrooms were like when they decided to buy the apartment? Sounds to me like they have a friend who's a lawyer and came to visit and said "Wait, hold on, they told you these are bedrooms? They don't really count as bedrooms, you could get some of your money back."
C) Speaking as someone who can barely afford my rent in Brooklyn, it's awfully hard to muster any sympathy for people who can afford to drop over 2 mil on 3,000 square feet in Tribeca, short of if the building fell down shortly after they closed or something.
i personally feel like anyone purchasing an apartment should have legal representation researching and "clearing" their potential apartment, just to be safe. i would hope that the majority of people buying an apartment in NYC would automatically know to look for this red flag, but it is understandable that it could easily be completely off many peoples' radars, even life-long new yorkers may not be aware.
there should be a law binding realtors to disclose a legal number of bedrooms. for them to play the "not our fault" card is BS, not clever marketing.
#6:
On B) I think you're right some friend who knows real estate told them those weren't legally considered bedrooms & they can get some money back. But... they aren't legally considered bedrooms. They're suing because when they resell the apartment they can't be expected to lie. Seems perfectly legit to me.
On C) Firstly, do you have more sympathy for Corcoran?
Secondly, by that logic if the family got mugged, they should have less recourse to the law because they can better afford it. Sounds like Commie talk to me, buddy.
Hi! I'm a fashion designed!
I heart commie talk.
"commie talk" what are you? a WWII vet or something?
if you are, I hope you die soon. I don't care for WWII vets. thankfully it's only a matter of time,
only a matter of time,
time is on my side, yes it is.
I think that they should sue their lawyer for malpractice- i cant imagine that the lawyer didn't read the offering plan which would have described the windows as lot line windows. Furthermore, i can't imagine any new yorker not thinking that they were lot line windows- just at face value- they are apparently adjacent to another building and probably is required by code have special glass.
Can't they just call it a 'den' or an 'office' in re-sale and stop whining?
One more error: It was the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) that rendered the decision, not New York's highest court (New York Court of Appeals).
Reason 1,322 why Jen Chung should be back writing for her 8th-grade newspaper.
Yea, this sounds like "buyer's remorse", waking up to realize you just spent $2.3 million on 3000 square feet ($767.00 per square foot.) What was it that Barnum said about suckers being born every minute?
No, I certainly don't have any more sympathy for Corcoran. None for any of the parties concerned, really, except maybe the judge who had to deal with so many people with a sense of entitlement all at once.
Didn't these buyers have their own broker to clue them in that those were not legal bedrooms? You should never take the seller's broker's word at face value.
Didn't they see the apartment before buying? If the rooms are too small, have dodgy non-windows, or lack some other feature (closets?) surely they would be able to see that on first inspection? Do people buy $2.3M apartments site unseen?
having had dealings with revital joseph i can only say the josephs new what they were doing and are hoping to get a bargain on their apartment by sueing and costing us taxpayers more money with frivolous lawsuits.