Durst-Brandt dispute over BofA Tower rent erupts in court

Landlord says Durst is trying to dodge future rent resets over a technicality

TRD New York /
Jan.January 29, 2015 04:24 PM

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 of the state’s involvement in the development of the Bank of America Tower, many zoning restrictions were waived, 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 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 of any zoning floor area bonuses obtained, according to the complaint.

However, the ESDC’s interception of the land rights using eminent domain changed the game entirely.

During negotiations for the original lease, 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 to dealing with the contentious issue. The complaint does not estimate how much money Brandt stands to lose in rent.

“The Dursts are just unhappy with the deal they signed,” said Robert Brandt, a principal of the Brandt Organization.

Jordan Barowitz, a spokesperson for Durst, described the suit as “meaningless.”

The Brandt Organization is represented by Jeffrey Braun of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, who declined to comment for this story.

Kyna Doles contributed reporting. 

Related Articles

The architect claims the design, construction and marketing of the tower rips off the design of a tower he planned and modeled for his thesis

Lawsuit over WTC design is whittled down

Durst Organization chairman Douglas Durst in a coworking space

Durst Ready: Developer to launch flexible office space arm

The MTA says it has the funding to extend the Second Avenue Subway to East Harlem, and the real estate industry is thrilled. (Credit: Getty, iStock)

Developers see dollar signs in Second Avenue subway extension

733 Third Avenue and Durst Organization president Jordy Durst (Credit: Google Maps and Durst Organization)

Tax firm EisnerAmper relocating large East Side office

One Bryant Park (Credit: The Durst Organization)

Bank of America leads $1.6B refi for tower named after it at One Bryant Park

4 World Trade Center and The Durst Organization president Jonathan Durst (Credit: Google Maps)

Durst inks 55K sf of leases at 4 Times Square

Douglas Durst and the NYC ferry on the East River (Credit: Curbed NY)

Durst wants to extend East River ferry service to UES

With Condé Nast’s old space re-leased, Durst lands $900M refi in Times Square