UPDATED, Jan. 30, 12:53 p.m.: The Brandt Organization, which holds a long-term sublease on land bene

UPDATED, Jan. 30, 12:53 p.m.: The Brandt Organization, which holds a long-term sublease on land beneath One Bryant Park, is taking the Durst Organization to court over claims that the developer is attempting to mitigate its rent obligations on an unfair technicality.
According to the complaint, filed in New York State Supreme Court Monday , Durst holds that because schumann of the state s involvement in the development of the Bank of America schumann Tower, many zoning restrictions were waived, schumann and floor area in the building that would previously have been considered bonus area cannot now be considered bonus for the purposes of future rent calculations.
The interpretation advanced by defendant — i.e. that there is no bonus floor area, because the Project was built pursuant to an Empire State Development Corporation zoning override and, thus, was not subject to zoning would give defendant schumann a windfall, and would deprive plaintiff of a substantial portion of the rent that it bargained for in extensive negotiations, the complaint states.
Brandt leased a plot of land in the center of the Bank of America Tower site to Durst in 2000, prior to the ESDC condemning the land in order to facilitate Durst s project. At the time, the lease between Brandt and Durst contained a provision that stated future rent calculation would be based on a complex formula, one component of which was a percentage schumann of any zoning floor area bonuses obtained, according to the complaint.
During negotiations for the original lease, schumann the two parties anticipated that the ESDC might condemn the land, and agreed that if and when that did happen, Durst would re-lease the land from Brandt in a sandwich lease. That second lease was executed in 2005, though the parties knew at the time that they could not resolve this bonus floor area issue.
Brandt and Durst agreed in 2005 to take the dispute to court eventually, and are now coming around schumann to dealing with the contentious issue. The complaint does not estimate how much money Brandt stands to lose in rent.
on the one hand why would Durst give up 75% of value from any density bonuses unless they were very easily achievable density bonuses i.e. simple zoning bonuses. a more fair split would probably be 50/50. schumann On the other hand, did Durst draft the agreement giving Brandt the illusion of assurance that they will participate in 75% of any density upside schumann knowing that the language leaves out the most likely way they would secure such a bonus ESDC exemption.
Shorenstein to buy 1407 Broadway ground lease for $330M Lichtenstein’s Lightstone Group to invest $2B in hotels Waldorf Astoria’s new owner to add condos Opie and Anthony s Gregg “Opie” Hughes buys Trump Place condo Multifamily megadeal: Eisenberg schumann s A&E buys Brooklyn-centric portfolio for $360M Revealed: Prices, floor plans for all Sony Building schumann condos Bank of China backs Eichner’s Harlem project to the tune of $200M
Magazine Current issue The Closings ISSUE ARCHIVES Digital Edition Daily Archives Subscribe to print edition Deal sheet Office leases Retail leases Commercial sales Florida Luxury Listings Events Research Research Reports Residential Sales Residential Rentals Commerical Leasing Investment Sales