Eight Out, One In at 23 Pierrepont

By on August 7, 2010 5:29 pm in Real Estate

BHB Photo by C. Scales


As reported by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, the townhouse at 23 Pierrepont Street, between Willow Street and Columbia Heights, has been sold for $1.65 million to a buyer, described as “a private investor”, who plans to convert it from its present configuration of eight apartments to a single family residence. According to the broker, John Horowitz of Marcus & Millichap, it’s an all-cash deal to close within thirty days.

Share this Story:

, , ,

←  Older Comments
 →
  • nabeguy

    ashton, you keep saying things like “it really doesn’t work that way” but offer nothing to support your claim. Okay, so you’ve talked to a few people and seen some situations. But your interpretation of the situation is just that…an interpretation based on hearsay, like your claims of wide-spread prostitution in every apartment house in the Heights.

  • Reggie

    It seems to me, ashton, that the tone of your posts are emotional and weak on substance, therefore my observation. I did not make the observation because we disagree, but by way of putting your comments in context. But that was an aside, not my main point. Forget I mentioned it.

    My main point is, in response to Claude’s statement that the building purchaser “plans to convert it from its present configuration of eight apartments to a single family residence,” is that can be done. It is currently legal and the law has been held up in court. I am responding to a specific scenario, removing tenants for personal use. I never said in a universal way that removing tenants from rent regulated apartments is easy. You generalize my comments and then refute something I never said.

  • Ben

    Hey everybody, get off of Ashtons back, he knows what he is talking about. See State of New York Division of Community Housing and Renewal. Any rent stabilized tenant MUST recive a lease renewal unless the landlord gets a judge in Housing Court to evit the tenant. The matter of 100 Clark Street is a landlords nightmare but the owner knew what he/she, Barry & Este B. were getting into when they bought the slum. These rent laws protect the middle class and the poor regretfully they have become weakened over time — the $2000 amount may be raised to $3000 per month proposed legislation. The house on Pierrrpont Street will have rent stabilized tenants for years, mabe decades to come so everybody just relax.

  • Ben

    Reggie,

    Housing Court will scrutinize any landloard who would propose a plan to empty a house and convert it back to a single family home for his own use that had better be the landlords true plan and NOT just a scam to rid the building of regulated tenants.

    AND for tenants who are disabled or senior citizens the landlord must find apartments in the neighborhood that are equal to what they are living in at the same rent or lower — IMPOSSIBLE here in Brooklyn Heights or anywhere in NYC — you see the greedy landlords did it to themselves!

    Rent stabilization laws are essential or a lot of people would be out of their apartments so that others can get even richer.

    Ben

  • ABC

    Can my landlord evict me and use my stabilized apartment for his family, and how many apartments in the building can the landlord take?

    One of the advantages of being a rent stabilized tenant is the right to renew your lease. This right holds with few exceptions, and eviction for owner occupancy by the landlord or a family member is one of the exceptions.

    The rent regulation laws allow the landlord of a rent stabilized building to take over one or more apartments for family use. However, he/she must give you 90 to 150 days notice before your existing lease expires that it will not be renewed. In addition, he/she must be able to prove that the apartment will be for family use.

    Note that if you are 62 or older or disabled you have additional protections. If you do wish to stay in the apartment, you could simply stay put and wait for the landlord to serve you with eviction papers. The landlord will then have to prove in court that he needs the apartment for family use. The court may or may not agree with his assessment.

    Regarding the number of apartments an owner can take: The Rent Stabilization Law and Code is a little vague about the number of apartments that an owner may occupy: “…only one of the individual owners of any building, whether such ownership is by joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or tenancy by the entirety to recover possession of one or more dwelling units for personal use and occupancy.” However, the DHCR informs us that an owner can take more than one unit for his or his relative’s occupancy.

    Contact DHCR at (718) 739-6400 or (212) 961-8930 for additional information on this subject, and see the fact sheet on eviction for owner occupancy.

  • ABC

    I don’t know why people think buyers are SCAMMING anyone when they want it for their own use. A single-family home is so much more valuable in this area than an apartment building.

    I really don’t think the rent stabilization laws are essential any more than charging less at the grocery store for a lucky few randomly selected who make less than x amount. It can be argued by taking these apartments off the open market, they make all the other apartments more expensive. I wouldn’t mind that — subsidizing affordable housing — if it were done in a fair and rational way. Passing rent stabilized apartments from generation to generation, for example, seems to me to be the opposite of fair and rational.

  • Reggie

    Ben and ABC, I know that. I did not think I was giving a tutorial so didn’t make the same points, but I welcome your additional information. Still left unmentioned is the requirement that the owner reside in the apartment(s) for three years, which is intended to at least slow down ‘serial-takers.’ Also, the owner needs to demonstrate why he or she is taking that specific apartment. (Unlike this scenario, it’s usually only one.)

    At the time my landlord was proposing to take my apartment, where I had just done $10K in capital renovations and $15-30K in sweat equity, there were vacant units. I made the case that a judge would make the owner move to an empty unit before allowing her to take mine. I throw that personal information out there for the folks, well, it really was just ashton, who assumed my knowledge came from working the other side of the issue.

  • ABC

    Reggie, I was replying to Ben

  • Ben

    ABC

    Disabled and Senior Citizen tenants will not be evicted, again, the owner who wants to use the apt for his family MUST find the Senior or the Disabled another apartment of like means in the neighborhood — try finding a $500 apartment in Brooklyn Heights it is impossible.

    Reggie,

    Thank you of educating me about the 3 year rule the landlord must live in the apartments for 3 years that is a help to rent laws.

  • Ben

    ABC,

    You are right about subsidies called rent stabilization why not have lower priced groceires, utilities, etc. why should the landlord get stuck holding the bag?

    And yes there are abuses of the rent stabilization system apartments handed down through generations — that is called “sucession rights” and a Judge can rule here. It is tough to claim sucession rights unless it is a legitimate claim.

    Ben

  • Ben

    ABC,

    Most laws are wrttten to a degree of “vague” to leave a degree of flexibility for the interpertation of a Judge.

    Ben

  • Ben

    Nabeguy,

    How could 100 Clark Street be 100% Rent Controlled?

    If there are 200 Rent Controlled apartments left in Brooklyn Heights I would be surprised.

    And the Rent Stabilized units are falling off rent roles by the month we saw the $2000 per month Studio Apt. when $2000 was the magic number for deregulation and now with pending legislation to raising the amount to $3000 per month we are about to see the $3000 per month Studio Apt.

    A problem for tenants is that DCHR does NOT check on capital improvments and vacancy increases and a win for Landlords is that DCHR does NOT check on capital improvments and vacancy increases.

    A signed Blumberg lease is well and good for DCHR. Landlords still clean-up make a ton of money with rent regulations stop complaining all landlords and stand up for your rights tenants its called Real Estate in the Big Apple evrybody wins one way or another.

    Ben

  • nabeguy

    Gee, Ben, I wish I had known you 15 years ago when I was stuck in my one-family conversion eviction. In regards to 100 Clark, I don’t know that it was 100% rent-controlled, but given that capital improvements are an avenue to get apartments out of the system and raise the rents, combined with the general knowledge that the building hadn’t seen even as much as a coat of paint since Benjamin Moore was in diapers, there’s certainly some kind of disconnect with that particular situation. I’m not prone to rely on hearsay and rumors, but based on some of the ones I’ve heard pertaining to this property, the possibility that the owners allowed it to become a state-subsidized halfway house, a la the St George, seems likely given the subsequent circumstances.

  • Ben

    Nabeguy,

    Capital Improvments are a ton of paperwork for a few dollars in rent rise, and every time a rent stabilized apt. vacates in some buildings, many landlords do this, a claim is made for a new kitchen, new bath, etc the same apt. will take the claim if it has been vacated and new tenants in one year, and DCHR does not check, thats how rent stabilized aprtments go from $700 to $4000 when they vacate.

    DCHR does not enforce rules, laws.

    Ben

  • Ben

    Nabeguy,

    100 Clark Street and Barry and Este B. are a LONG story find me at CowNeckBay@aol.com

    Ben

←  Older Comments
 →