The Real Deal New York

Posts Tagged ‘rushmore’

  • HUD probes Extell over Rushmore complaints

    February 04, 2010 05:42PM

    From left: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan and the Rushmore

    The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has launched an investigation into the Rushmore condominium, amid allegations that the lawyers for the developer, Extell Development, held previously undisclosed meetings with state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s office to prevent existing buyers from backing out of their apartment contracts.

    HUD officials said that as of May 11, 2009, Extell “voluntarily suspended” the building’s registration under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA), a federal law that protects consumers in newly constructed condos with more than 99 units. The move would allegedly be a way for the developer to shield itself from ILSA-related claims.

    HUD opened the probe after media reports mentioned that 34 buyers filed complaints with the AG’s office. While officials did not disclose why Extell would suspend, documents obtained by The Real Deal show the Rushmore developer was facing an ILSA-based lawsuit prior to the filing…. [more]

    Comments
  • The Brompton, the luxury Upper East Side condominium from Related
    Companies, is facing litigation from the buyer of four penthouse
    apartments, alleging that the developer misrepresented certain building
    amenities and also failed to allow independent inspections of the
    property. The lawsuit, filed June 4 in New York State Supreme Court, demands that
    Related return more than $5 million in deposits for the four
    apartments, which have a combined value of $25.7 million. The suit names two defendants, Related and 86th LLC, which controls the
    Brompton, and the law firm of Michael, Levitt & Rubenstein, which
    holds the deposits in escrow. Joanna Rose, a spokesperson for Related, said: “Two
    judges have already denied a temporary restraining order for similar
    claims and we have no reason to believe that this instance
    will be any different.” … [more]

    Comments
MENU