New York Shitty Day Starter: Should We Stay Or Should We Go?

A commenter, hav, writes on March 29, 2012 (regarding this post about 239 Banker Street):

non-surprisingly someone decided to complain to the DOB which ordered the building to vacate yesterday. As of today there are some interesting developments but nothing solidified yet. It is however looking like the building has a strong possibility of getting covered by the NYC Loft Law which will protect tenants from being vacated.

Here’s the deal: while complaints have been placed, this building has most assuredly NOT been vacated. I know this because I saw another person move in March 30th. His (or her) personal effects included the box at top left.

Nonetheless, I perused the Department of Buildings Building Information System anyway.

Nary a Vacate Order was to be found— but there are plenty of complaints!

Let’s go to the latest: 3407084

So now we have to look at Complaint #3403837 for “closure”.


Given all the previous, I find the following missive (as found on the Broadway stop of the G train and thus out of the 33rd City Council District’s— and 239 Banker Street’s— jurisdiction) fascinating to say the least:

Those of you who have questions (as I do) as to why 239 Banker Street has, once again, been allowed to be illegally employed as residential property despite this— or simply have questions about the loft law should make it a point to attend. Be sure to ask our City Councilman why he is conducting a “loft law” workshop outside his own district while you’re at there!

Panel Discussion on the State of the Loft Law
Co-Conductors: Assemblyman Vito Lopez and Steve Levin, City Councilman, 33rd District (which includes 239 Banker Street)
Invited guests: The Department of Buildings & New York City Loft Board
Date: April 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Location: Our Lady of Pompeii, Community Room
225 Seigel Street
Brooklyn, New York 11206

Otherwise those who find all the previous disconcerting can send Mr. Levin an email via his web page.


2 Comments on New York Shitty Day Starter: Should We Stay Or Should We Go?

  1. a neighbor on Mon, 2nd Apr 2012 7:32 pm
  2. I posted this in the other thread. The Loft Law is very simple, and this building does not qualify:

    The building possesses no residential certificate of occupancy pursuant to §301 of the Multiple Dwelling Law;
    The building was used in the past for manufacturing, commercial or warehousing purposes; and
    There were three or more residential tenants living in separate apartments in the building in the 20-month period between April 1, 1980, and December 1, 1981 (the “statutory window period”).


    This isn’t even 285 Kent, where people had been living for years and years under the radar, and there was an organized tenants org that could hire attorneys to try to bring the building up to code. This building has NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. This is a brand new building where the landlord won’t play by the rules and the people who will be penalized will be the foolish ones who can’t follow the “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is” rule.

    Do you really want to live in a building where the elevator hasn’t been certified, hasn’t been inspected by the fire department? Do you really think this building is safe?

    I really need to find the time to call the non-emergency number of the local firehouse and tell them the landlord is playing games with this building again.

  3. missheather on Mon, 2nd Apr 2012 7:36 pm
  4. Good analysis, a neighbor!

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • NYS Flickr Pool

    The One CrewSnowy SeagullsWalking the Dog in the Snow
  • Ads