A Suit Grows In Brooklyn: Walentas Gets Sued Over Square Footage
Pity Brooklyn’s 110 Livingston! Mayor Bloomberg called the former Board of Education HQ a “notorious Kremlin” and “rinkydink candy store,” and Giuliani once said it should be blown up.
But even after the DUMBO developer David Walentas bought the building and converted it into fancy condos, there are still troubles.
The attorney Rishi Bhandari and his wife Heather put 10 percent down on a $795,000 apartment at 110 Livingston in March, before the building was done. And by this Wednesday, Mr. Bhandari told The Observer, they'd filed suit against Mr. Walentas’ Two Trees Development.
He says that late last month, a few days before the couple was set to close on their apartment, they found that the place was 109 square feet smaller than Two Trees had promised.
That’s apparently a 17 percent difference. “It’s fraud,” he said. “They were doing this on purpose.”
Mr. Walentas, reached on his cell phone, said he didn’t know about the suit. “I have no idea. I really don’t, really!” he said. “There are 300 people there, I’m sure one or two aren’t happy.”
According to Mr. Bhandari, who is representing himself, Two Trees gave him the chance to walk out on the contract, and even get his down payment back, when he complained about the size difference.
Instead, because he says they’ve already spent time and even paid an architect for work on the apartment, they want to stay. “Either give us the money for the missing square footage,” he said, paraphrasing his demands, “or give us the money so we can build the loft space”--there are 18-foot ceilings--“or you guys build the loft space!”
He says he’s never sued or been sued by anyone before. One reason they don’t want to take the money and walk away, he said, is that Two Trees would simply mislead other buyers.
A link to the fascinating lawsuit is here.
Lawyers are generally too quick to sue others. No wonder co-op boards are tough on buyers with a law degree...
Exactly. To purchase based on paper plans w/out seeing the unit, and to proceed to with the purchase even after given the option to back out, then sue, wow???
Isn't it illegal for the developer to make misrepresentations in an offering plan? Wouldn't the attorney general step in if that was true?
AG has too much on its plate. You can't rely on them exclusively.
I was reading through the article and lawsuit (too much time in my hands this weekend).
I sympathize with him (hey, I was a buyer in a new condo too, and noticed the same thing in my offering plan vs. measured sf). However, I think that his lawsuit is more than just that.
The guy simply wants to have his cake and eat it too! He was given a chance to opt out, and he basically says that he went ahead and bought the place anyways because "Two Trees would simply mislead the other buyers." Yeah right. That's a flimsy excuse. He bought the condo, with the intent to sue /from. the. beginning./
If you read the lawsuit, the guy just wanted to build a loft space, and have Walentas and Co. pay for it.
How would canceling the contract be fair if Walentas knew that the apartment was smaller than advertised when he sold it and the buyers had no way of knowing that when they bought the apartment?
Shouldn't the buyers at least get interest on the money that was tied up by Walentas and be compensated for the fact that they could have bought another apartment in March and now prices are higher?
You must work for the developer or are one of the most naive people on Earth. In 1998, the near-bankrupt Walentas sold the One Main Clocktower with a prospectus so filled with misrepresentations and outright lies it should have stripped him of his license to build and put him in prison. Instead, the corrupt Eliot Spitzer looked the other way and allowed Walentas to walk away unscathed. The office of Attorney General is a joke. The Martin Act is enacted selectively. It's about cronyism and payoffs. Just recently, I spoke with an individual at Two Trees who acknowledged the amount of bribery and under-the-table goings on. Regardless, Spitzer's now the Governor and Walentas is expanding his arm into Brooklyn Heights and beyond.
When a home or condo is advertised for sale in a paper, magazine, or on the Internet, there's always a sentence stating that the house/condo specifics are "believed" to be accurate.
This couple didn't do their homework. A 109 square-foot difference would be hard not to notice in a 1000 square-foot condo. That's roughly a 10 x 10 room. The developer may be misrepresenting the facts, but he did offer a refund. This couple is stuck and they can either take the offer or not take the offer.
At least they have a condo and they should count their blessings. The Trump Tower fiasco in Tampa makes this look like peanuts. I guess this project was iffy and almost doomed from the start. One Trump Tower buyer of a multimillion dollar condo wants his 20% down payment back, and Trump's building partner doesn't answer his calls. Apparently no one knows where the loot is and the check isn't in the mail. It may not be in the mail for a long time. A long, long, long time.
Actually, if you read the lawsuit you'll see that the buyers did do their homework. Although they relied on the floor plan when they bought the apartment. As soon as they were allowed to actually see the apartment they realized the floor plan contained lies. A developer can't intentionally lie in the offering plan and then, when they get caught months or years later, when the unit is available for inspection, simply return the money. That's an interest-free loan if they get caught and an unfair profit if they get away with it.
Its amazing the rationalizing going on here. Two Trees just LIED. Folks were sold something based on a spec, and the spec was FRADULENT. It wasn't like these people could walk around the apartments before they bought, they were sold based on floorplans.
I'm sorry, but Two Trees should be *nailed* for this. And the rest of the tenants should sue to get some of their money back.
This is what you call FRAUD. When you get caught, you don't give the money back and then go home. You go to jail.
No justice no peace! Welcome aboard my Indian brother and sista!
The two previous posters make valid points. The visual floorplan didn't match the diminensions of the actual condo, and the developer has misrepresented the goods he's selling.
This condo was a conversion project. What I don't understand, is why the couple didn't walk around and look at the condo while it was being converted. Surely at some point they could have viewed the condo.
I was reading an article several months ago. It mentioned people buying condos and homes by just viewing them online, sight unseen, and talking to the real estate broker 1000, or 2000 miles from where they live.
One guy lived in Los Angeles and he was just too busy and didn't have the time to look at the expensive condo he was buying 3000 miles from Los Angeles. That is dumb. Trusting what a real estate broker says is dumb.
There's so many things you have to look at that may not appear on your computer screen. Clusters of huge power lines may be close to the property; it may get too much sun or too little sun; a dumpster may be below your window, etc.
Anyone who actually reads the fine print on an offering plan will understand that the square footage includes such things as exterior wall thicknesses and portions of the interior wall thicknesses. For the unit to be physically smaller on the inside than advertised is not lying or misrepresentation. It's de riguer.
Yes, I would think the thickness of the walls reduces the square footage a bit.
My property tax bill lists the square footage of my house as 30 square feet more than the developer's floorplan square footage.
I really don't know how the square footage is measured. Is it measured on the inside or the oustide?
Sorry, but the thickness of the walls is NOT going to reduce square footage by 17%. This isn't a fortress. SEVENTEEN percent. Do you know math? Thats not a couple inches.
Nice try, though.
They just lied, thats it. If thats standard, well, then its an EXCELLENT time to take one of the gulity parties to court. Lying about square footage is the same as lying about horsepower or the model year. Its a LIE. Not a bad estimationand definitely not something to be called "standard" unless you're talking about an industry of frauds. Well, then again...
As for why the person couldn't just "walk around" the conversion, do you know what a conversion is? The building was completely gutted and rebuilt inside. There were no walls at one point.
how can you misrepresent something that doesn't exist yet?
if the offering plan was written last year, before the apartment had walls or ceilings, doesn't that seem more like an architectural mistake then a fraudulent bait and switch?
> how can you misrepresent something that doesn't exist yet?
> if the offering plan was written last year, before the
> apartment had walls or ceilings, doesn't that seem more
> like an architectural mistake then a fraudulent bait and
> switch?
Yes, I'm sure they had NO idea. Except they were BUILDING IT.
Right, no idea. Jesus, the rationalizations people can come up with.
The dimensions are off 17% and you think a CONSTRUCTION CREW wouldn't notice. You think a contractor just let that go by.
Come on, what are you, one of the brokers who sold the apartment?
A lie is a lie.
I totally agree that Two Trees misrepresented the square footage.
From my experience, many builders are less than honest people. In fact I have not bought a house, nor personal members of my family, from a totally honest builder. They always seem to promise more than they can deliver.
Many condo conversions are not totally gutted. Loft projects, transformed from historical buildings such as an old cotton mill, are normally gutted, but not necessarily former apartment buildings.
Some real-estate construction/investment firms specialize in condo conversions. That's their select niche. They buy an apartment building and then upgrade it. Usually nothing too major for individual apartment units--just hardwoods, granite counters, a new bath, new appliances, and a few upgrades here and there. Curb appeal is important, so a major portion of their funds will be allocated to upgrade a previous dull/boring lobby, pool, and gym.
Gutting an entire apartment building will reduce the profit margins. A high-end condo may see more radical alterations than a condo more moderately priced.
If this couple had opportunties to view the condo, but didn't that's unfortunate. A buyer is a fool if you don't view the condo or house during the construction phase. A buyer is a fool if they don't hire building inspectors.
Naturally at the end of the building/renovation cycle your options are more limited.
I am about to close on a unit. Although I'm not an expert, I carefully measured the "inside" of my apt. One room came out a little bigger and one room came out a little smaller. No mention of the hallways dimension is mentioned. It all totaled about 6 per cent less than stated. Since I believe that most Condos are measured from the "outside", I feel fine with their advertised squarge footage numbers...