SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ARRON LATIMER, IVYROCK EQUITIES LLC, ANNA
TB LLC, DANI TB LLC, MICHAEL AND ERIN LLC,
N
ADIA TB LLC, T BAE 4 BEE LLC, T BAY 3A LLC,
TURTLE B 2 BE LLC, TURTLE BAE 1 BEE LLC,
TURTLE BAY 2 AYY LLC, APEX EAST
MANAGEMENT LLC, ESTHER YIP, THE LAND AND
BUILDING KNOWN AS 344 E 51 STREET, BLOCK
1343, LOT 134, COUNTY, CITY AND STATE OF NEW
YORK, and “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE,” numbers 1
through 10, fictitiously named parties, true names unknown,
the parties intended being the managers or operators of the
business being carried on by defendants, and any person
claiming any right, title or interest in the real property which
is the subject of this action,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Index No. ___/2022
SUMMONS
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED TO ANSWER the verified complaint in this action
and to serve a copy of your answer on the plaintiff CITY OF NEW YORK within twenty (20) days
after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after
service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York.
In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the
relief demanded in the complaint.
The basis of the venue designated is the residence of the plaintiff and the county in which
the properties affected by this action are located. Plaintiff designates New York County as the place
of trial.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
1 of 45
2
Dated: New York, New York
June 29, 2022
Hon. Sylvia Hinds-Radix
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attorney for Plaintiff
By: __ ______________________
Austin Hee
Special Assistant Corporation Counsel
Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement
22 Reade Street, 4
th
Floor
New York, NY 10007
Tel.: (212) 416-5266
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
2 of 45
3
TO:
ARRON LATIMER
757 3rd Avenue Fl 20
New York, NY 10017-2046
1630 2nd Avenue APT 5RN
New York, 10028-4490
344 East 51 Street APT 1B
New York, NY 10022-7823
IVYROCK EQUITIES LLC
162 West 4
th
Street, #3
New York, NY 10014
ANNA TB LLC
344 East 51
st
Street, Apartment 1A
New York, NY 10022
DANI TB LLC
344 East 51
st
Street, Apartment 4A
New York, NY 10022
MICHAEL AND ERIN LLC
344 East 51
st
Street, Apartment 3B
New York, NY 10022
NADIA TB LLC
344 East 51
st
Street, A
New York, NY 10022
T BAE 4 BEE LLC
344 East 51
st
Street, Apartment 4B
New York, NY 10022
T BAY 3A LLC
344 East 51
st
Street, Apartment 3A
New York, NY 10022
TURTLE B 2 BE LLC
344 East 51 Street, Apartment 2B
New York, NY 10022
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
3 of 45
4
TURTLE BAE 1 BEE LLC
344 East 51
st
Street, Apartment 1B
New York, NY 10022
TURTLE BAY 2 AYY LLC
344 East 51 Street Apartment 2A
New York, NY 10022
APEX EAST MANAGEMENT LLC
344 East 51
st
Street
New York, NY 10022
ESTHER YIP
525 East 80 Street APT 7F
New York, NY 10075-0707
THE LAND AND BUILDING KNOWN AS 344 E 51 STREET, BLOCK 1343, LOT 134,
County, City and State Of New York
“JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE,” numbers 1 through 10
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
4 of 45
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
A
RRON LATIMER, IVYROCK EQUITIES LLC, ANNA
TB LLC, DANI TB LLC,
MICHAEL AND ERIN LLC,
NADIA TB LLC, T BAE 4 BEE LLC, T BAY 3A LLC,
TURTLE B 2 BE LLC, TURTLE BAE 1 BEE LLC,
TURTLE BAY 2 AYY LLC,
APEX EAST
MANAGEMENT LLC
, ESTHER YIP, THE LAND AND
BUILDING KNOWN AS
344 E 51 STREET, BLOCK
1343
, LOT 134, COUNTY, CITY AND STATE OF NEW
YORK,
and “JOHN DOE” and “JANE DOE,” numbers 1
through 10, fictitiously named parties, true names unknown,
the parties intended being the managers or operat
ors of the
business being carried on by defendants, and any person
claiming any right, title or interest in the real property which
is the subject of this action
,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Index No. ______/2022
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, the City of New York (the “City”), by its attorney, Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, for its verified complaint against defendants,
alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff brings this action to shut down illegal transient rentals in a four-story
building in Turtle Bay, 344 East 51
st
Street, New York (“Subject Building”) where Defendants
have refused to stop their illegal short-term rental operation despite multiple enforcement efforts
from the City, and to hold Defendants responsible for their years of willful neglect of their duty
to keep their building in a safe and code-compliant manner.
2. Defendants are short-term rental operator Arron Latimer and the entity LLCs he
controls (the “Latimer LLCs” and, collectively with Latimer, the “Operator Defendants”); and
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
5 of 45
2
the building owner, APEX EAST MANAGEMENT LLC (“Apex”), its managing member,
Esther Yip, and the illegally advertised and converted in rem Subject Building itself
(collectively, the “Owner Defendants”).
3. To date, the City has attempted to abate these public nuisances through pre-
litigation administrative enforcement efforts, to no avail.
4. The City has conducted 4 administrative code inspections on the Subject Building
and issued 17 illegal transient occupancy and illegal conversion-related violations—with 3
inspections and 11 violations issued to Defendant Apex, who purchased the building in 2016.
5. These violations cited not only the illegal short-term occupancy of permanent-
only residential dwelling units, but the related safety hazards such as: inadequate fire alarm
system; inadequate fire sprinkler system; and failure to provide required number of means of
egress.
6. Despite receiving summonses, Defendants willfully ignored these violations,
continued their unlawful activities, and refused to address the resulting hazardous conditions.
7. Instead of complying with the law, Defendants have either disregarded the
violations or paid them without discontinuing their illegal activity—because the violation
amount was much lower than the profits that their illicit operation was generating.
8. This represents a conscious choice by Defendants to violate the law and refuse to
keep the Subject Building in a safe and code-compliant manner.
9. The conditions created by Defendants’ illegal conduct in the Subject Building
negatively affect the health, safety, security, and general welfare of the residents of and visitors
to the City of New York, including: (1) the illegal and hazardous rental of permanent residential
dwelling units to numerous transient occupants, without having the more stringent fire and safety
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
6 of 45
3
features required in buildings legally designed to serve transient occupants; (2) the creation of
significant risks in Subject Building not staffed to handle the security issues associated with
transient occupancy, and a degradation in the quiet enjoyment, safety, and comfort of permanent
residents in the Subject Building and in neighboring buildings caused by noise, filth, and the
excessive traffic of unknown and constantly changing individuals entering their places of abode;
and (3) the unlawful reduction of the permanent housing stock available to the residents of New
York City at a time when there is a legislatively declared housing emergency.
10. Specifically, Defendants ran an elaborate and illegal short-term rental operation
by creating and maintaining multiple host accounts and listings advertising unlawful and unsafe
short-term rentals on websites like www.Airbnb.com (“Airbnb”), which lured tourists into
booking illegal stays. Defendants also advertise the Subject Building on www.TripAdvisor.com
and https://viaggiconsolo.wordpress.com/.
11. In total, Airbnb disbursed over $2 million in payments to Defendant ARRON
LATIMER (“Latimer”) for short-term stays in the Subject Building and other New York City
Buildings from 2018-2021.
12. Upon information and belief, Latimer, a licensed real estate broker, advertised and
operated illegal short-term rentals through at least 27 different Airbnb host accounts—each
traceable back to him—though which Latimer advertised nearly 80 listings, resulting in over
2,200 Airbnb reservations, and deceiving more than 6,500 guests, in clear violation of Airbnb’s
“One Host, One Home” policy for New York City.
1
1
On November 1, 2016, Airbnb launched a “one host, one home” policy for New York City, and states in an update on
that policy that it is “concerned about hosts who may offer space that could otherwise have been on the long-term rental
housing market in New York City.”
https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/OneHostOneHomeNewYorkCity-1.pdf (last viewed on
June 2, 2022).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
7 of 45
4
13. Here, the dozens of different Airbnb host accounts Latimer used to advertise
short-term stays in the Subject Building all utilized fake names, fake host descriptions, and stock
images from the internet, thereby further highlighting Defendants were aware that their operation
was illegal.
14. Indeed, reviews from Latimer’s guests on Airbnb often expressed dismay with his
misleading business practices, the physical conditions of the apartments, and his robotic or
automated communications.
15. For example, guests described the location as “astonishingly dirty” with
complaints of mold, soiled linens, and blood stains.
16. Other guests warned that future visitors should “be aware that the address or
listing is different than the actual location” posing a significant concern for travelers unfamiliar
with the city.
17. Additionally, reviews reveal that some guests felt as though they were
communicating with a robot or third-party agency as indicated by autogenerated responses to
inquiries.
18. The City brings this action pursuant to and by authority of Section 20 of the New
York General City Law; Section 394 of the New York City Charter; the Consumer Protection
Law at Section 20-703 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York (the “Admin.
Code”); Section 306 of the New York Multiple Dwelling Law (“MDL”); Sections 7-704, 7-706,
Airbnb admitted that many New York City hosts use fraudulent strategies to bypass the policy in a letter dated
March 29, 2019 to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, providing that “following the
adaptation of Airbnb’s One Host, One Home policy in November 2016, various entities operating illegal hotels in
New York City devised and successfully implemented strategies intended to evade Airbnb’s One Host, One Home
enforcement efforts.”
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
8 of 45
5
27-2110, 27-2115, 27-2120, and 28-205.1 of the Admin. Code; and pursuant to the common law
doctrine of public nuisance.
19. The City seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and the imposition of
civil statutory penalties and restitution as well as compensatory and punitive damages against the
owners, managers, operators, and agents of the Subject Building, and against the Subject
Building itself, for violations under the MDL, the New York City Building Code (“Building
Code”), the New York City Housing Maintenance Code (“Housing Maintenance Code”), the
New York City Consumer Protection Law, Admin. Code § 20-700, et seq. (“CPL” or “Consumer
Protection Law”), the New York City Nuisance Abatement Law, Admin. Code § 7-701 et seq.
(“NAL” or “Nuisance Abatement Law”), and pursuant to the common law doctrine of public
nuisance.
BACKGROUND
20. The Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement (“OSE”) is a governmental entity
established by Mayoral Executive Order No. 96 of 2006 to address quality of life issues
citywide, including illegal hotels, lawless clubs, and adult establishments.
21. OSE oversees and conducts joint investigations and inspections with various City
agencies. When property owners fail to remedy violating conditions for an extended period of
time through administrative enforcement mechanisms, the City seeks remedies in courts pursuant
to the Nuisance Abatement Law and other statutes to compel compliance and halt flagrant
violations.
22. Through Mayoral Executive Order No. 22 of 2016, OSE is also tasked with
enforcing unlawful advertising of illegal short-term occupancy in multiple dwellings that can
only lawfully be occupied permanently, for 30 consecutive days or more.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
9 of 45
6
23. Tourists and other visitors to New York City are enticed by misleading
advertisements on numerous internet websites for short-term apartment accommodations located
within buildings designed and constructed only for permanent residency.
24. Many of these visitors are unwittingly led to book accommodations which are not
only illegal, but also pose a heightened risk to their health and safety, as well as to the health and
safety of the lawful tenants of those buildings.
25. A business that misleads consumers by purveying illegal and unsafe consumer
goods or services without any indication that they are not legal or safe commits a deceptive trade
practice prohibited by federal, state, and local consumer protection laws. See Consumer
Protection Law, Admin. Code §§ 20-700, et seq.
26. Moreover, advertising, booking, and permitting transient accommodations in
buildings where such accommodations are illegal create a public nuisance under both the
Nuisance Abatement Law and the common law.
27. The law has long recognized that the conditions and practices complained of
herein, which endanger or injure the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number
of persons, constitute a public nuisance adversely affecting both tourists and visitors to New
York City, those who may lawfully reside in residential units in the Subject Building and in
neighboring buildings, as well as emergency personnel who would respond to any situation at the
Subject Building.
28. The City continually receives complaints about unlawful short-term transient
occupancies from many sources – calls to “311,” letters and emails from the public,
communications from elected officials and community groups – regarding excessive noise from
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
10 of 45
7
tourists, overflowing trash, vomit in hallways, fires, loud fighting, drugs, prostitution, and the
like.
29. Despite occupancy and safety rules prohibiting such use, dwelling units in
permanent residential apartment buildings in New York City are increasingly being utilized as
transient, short-term occupancy units for tourists and other visitors rather than tenants who intend
to establish a permanent residence.
30. This practice has been abetted by the phenomenal growth of the internet travel
industry and comes at a time when affordable housing accommodations for the residents of New
York City remain at historically low levels.
31. The spread of illegal transient occupancies creates a number of serious problems
for the City:
(1) an illegal siphoning off of a significant portion of the CITY’s housing
stock, occurring most acutely in the affordable housing sector;
2
(2) harassment of permanent tenants by owners who seek to push out
those tenants illegally in order to pursue a more lucrative (albeit
unlawful) transient market;
(3) serious safety hazards, in particular with regard to fire protection, as
code requirements for permanent residency buildings are not nearly as
stringent as those for units and buildings geared to transient
occupancy, and also with regard to severe overcrowding;
(4) a growing number of complaints from tourists who book
accommodations over the internet, in most cases responding to
advertisements unaware that rooms are being offered in violation of
the law; and
2
The City’s “acute shortage of dwellings” has created an affordable housing crisis that is a “serious public
emergency.” See Emergency Housing Rent Control Law § 1, codified as N.Y. Unconsol. Law Ch. 249, § 1 (Lexis
2016) (making these legislative findings in establishing rent control system). See also Local Emergency Housing
Rent Control Act § 1(2), codified as N.Y. Unconsol. Law Ch. 249-A, § 1(2) (Lexis 2016); Emergency Tenant
Protection Act of Nineteen Seventy-Four § 2, codified as N.Y. Unconsol. Law Ch. 249-B, § 2 (Lexis 2016) (making
identical legislative findings in establishing successor rent stabilization systems); Bucho Holding Co. v. Temporary
State Housing Rent Comm., 11 N.Y.2d 469, 473 (1962) (“The existence of an emergency justifying continued
control of rents in the areas here involved may not [be], and indeed is not, denied.”).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
11 of 45
8
(5) a burgeoning number of transient occupants, inter-mixed with
permanent residents and neighbors, whose presence poses significant
risks in buildings not equipped to handle the security problems
associated with transient occupancy, as well as a degradation of
quality of life for residents and neighbors.
32. Due to these deleterious effects on the housing market and the safety concerns for
residents, tourists, the general public and emergency response personnel, illegal hotel operations
are a point of particular concern to the City and State governments in protecting New Yorkers’
quality of life.
33. To begin to address the illegal transient occupancy situation, the Legislature
enacted Chapter 225 of the Laws of New York State of 2010 (“Chapter 225”), effective on May
1, 2011, which clarified the historic prohibition on renting units in Class “A” multiple dwellings,
as defined under the MDL
3
and the HMC, for less than 30 consecutive days.
34. The Legislature enacted Chapter 225 in response to the First Department’s 2009
City of New York v. 330 Continental LLC decision (60 A.D.3d 226), amending the MDL and
other related laws to make clear, among other things, that the rental of any unit in a Class “A”
building for less than 30 days is prohibited.
35. The legislative justification for Chapter 225 was explained by the law’s sponsor in
this manner:
The Multiple Dwelling Law and local Building, Fire and Housing
Maintenance Codes establish stricter fire safety standards for
dwellings such as hotels that rent rooms on a day to day (transient)
basis than the standards for dwellings intended for month to month
(permanent) residence. There are substantial penalties for owners
3
In 1929, the Legislature enacted MDL to “ensure the establishment and maintenance of proper housing standards
requiring sufficient light, air, sanitation and protection from fire hazards.” See MDL § 2. The 1929 MDL created
two distinct and mutually exclusive classifications of buildings that continue in the law today: “Class A” buildings
used for permanent residence use, and “Class B” housing intended for short-term transient use. The MDL defines
buildings used for permanent residence purposes, such as “tenements, flat houses, maisonette apartments, [and]
apartment houses,” as Class A. See MDL § 4(4) (now, § 4(8)(a)). Similarly, the MDL defines buildings typically
used for transient purposes, such as “hotels, lodging houses, rooming houses, [and] boarding houses,” as Class B.
See MDL § 4(4) (now, § 4(9)(a)).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
12 of 45
9
who use dwellings constructed for permanent occupancy (Class A)
as illegal hotels. However, the economic incentive for this
unlawful and dangerous practice has increased, while it is easier
than ever to advertise illegal hotel rooms for rent to tourists over
the internet. This is especially so in New York City, which is
attracting visitors and tourists from around the world in record
numbers. In most cases tourists responding to such advertisements
are unaware that the rooms are being offered in violation of the
law. Not only does this practice offer unfair competition to
legitimate hotels that have made substantial investments to comply
with the law but it is unfair to the legitimate “permanent”
occupants of such dwellings who must endure the inconvenience
of hotel occupancy in their buildings and it decreases the supply of
affordable permanent housing. It endangers both the legal and
illegal occupants of the building because it does not comply with
fire and safety codes for transient use.
Recently, law enforcement actions against illegal hotels have been
hindered by challenges to the interpretation of “permanent
residence” that enforcing agencies have relied on for decades . . .
New York State Senate Memorandum in Support of Legislation (S6873B, 233rd Leg. (N.Y.
2010 (Sponsor’s Memo)) Assembly Bill No. A10008), available at
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2009/S6873, at “Justification.”
36. The plain language of the law, supported by its legislative history, makes clear
that the Legislature intended to eliminate all transient use in “all Class ‘A’ buildings in
existence” as of the bill’s enactment and all those constructed thereafter. See Ch. 225 of the Laws
of 2010, at § 8; Governor’s Bill Jacket, Ch. 225 of the Laws of 2010, at 6 -17.
37. No Class “A” building was exempted from its coverage.
38. Following the Legislature’s clear intent in Chapter 225, the First Department
unequivocally held that the Chapter 225 provisions applied to all buildings in existence on the
date of its enactment, and no dwelling unit in a Class “A” multiple dwelling can be used
transiently. Matter of Grand Imperial, LLC v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 137 A.D.3d
579 (1st Dep’t), lv. denied, 28 N.Y.3d 907 (2016) (“[I]n enacting the amendments, the
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
13 of 45
10
legislature’s intent that a 30-day minimum occupancy requirement would apply to all, with only
narrow, specified exceptions, was sufficiently clear that petitioner’s saving clause right to
continue renting for the shorter period was extinguished.”) (internal citation omitted); Matter of
Terrilee 97
th
Street LLC v. N.Y.C. Envtl. Control Bd., 146 A.D.3d 716 (1st Dep’t 2017), lv. to
reargue or appeal denied, 2017 N.Y. Slip. Op. 86314(U) (Sept. 19, 2017) (“Under the Multiple
Dwelling Law, as amended effective May 1, 2011, none of the units in petitioner’s Class A
multiple dwelling may be used for occupancy periods shorter than 30 days.”) (citations omitted).
39. The advertising, maintenance and operation of permanent residential properties
for transient occupancy where such use is prohibited and unsafe deceives consumers and creates
a public nuisance endangering or injuring the property, health, safety and comfort of residents in
those buildings, residents in surrounding areas, and tourists and visitors to New York City.
40. Most recently, in 2016, as a further step to address this issue, the Legislature
amended the MDL and Administrative Code to expressly prohibit advertising the use or
occupancy of dwelling units in Class “A” multiple dwellings for other than permanent residence
purposes (i.e., short-term rental for more than 30 days).
41. The law’s sponsor explained the justification for adding a new Section 121 to the
MDL and a new Article 18 to subchapter three of chapter one of title 27 of the Admin. Code
(i.e., Admin. Code § 27-287.1) as follows:
In 2010, in the face of an explosion of illegal hotel operators in
single room occupancy buildings in New York City, New York
State clarified and strengthened the laws regarding transient
occupancy in class A multiple dwellings. Now, with the
proliferation of online home sharing platforms that allow users to
advertise their apartments for use that directly violates New York
State’s “illegal hotels” law, the purpose of the “illegal hotels” law
is at risk of being undone.
While it is already illegal to occupy a class A multiple dwelling for
less than 30 days, this legislation would clarify that it also illegal
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
14 of 45
11
to advertise units for occupancy that would violate New York law.
However, online home sharing platforms still contain
advertisements for use of units that would violate New York law. It
rests with the city and state to protect communities and existing
affordable housing stock by prohibiting advertisements that violate
the law, creating a civil penalty structure for those who violate the
prohibition, and clarifying activities that constitute advertising
(emphasis added).
New York State Senate Memorandum in Support of Legislation (S6340A, 239th Leg. (N.Y.
2016 (Sponsor’s Memo)) Assembly Bill No. A8704C), available at
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/S6340, at “Justification.”
PARTIES
42. Plaintiff, the City, is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York.
43. Defendants fall into two categories: (1) operator Arron Latimer and the entity
LLCs he controls; and (2) the building owner, Esther Yip, Apex, the entity LLC she controls, and
the illegally advertised and converted in rem Subject Building itself (collectively, the “Owner
Defendants”).
A. THE OPERATOR DEFENDANTS: ARRON LATIMER AND HIS TEN (10)
ASSOCIATED LATIMER LLCS
44. Defendant ARRON LATIMER is a natural person, and the managing agent of the
Subject Building according to the last valid registration filed with the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”), which expired on 9/1/2017.
45. Upon information and belief, Defendant Latimer is a licensed real estate agent
recetly employed by the brokerage firm R New York.
46. Latimer is the controlling—and only member—of the following nine LLCs
associated with the Subject Building (collectively, the “Latimer 344 E 51
st
LLCs”).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
15 of 45
12
47. Latimer organized all nine LLCs in early December 2019 under the laws of the
State of New York, using the Subject Building as the address for service of process, as follows:
i. Anna TB LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street 1A, NY 10002;
ii. Dani TB LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street 4A, NY 10002;
iii. Michael and Erin LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street 3B, NY 10002;
iv. Nadia TB LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street A, NY 10002;
v. T Bae 4 Bee LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street 4B, NY 10002;
vi. T Bay 3A LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street Apartment 3A, NY 10002;
vii. Turtle B 2 Be LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street 2B, NY 10002;
viii. Turtle Bae 1 Bee LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street 1B, NY 10002;
ix. Turtle Bay 2 Ayy LLC: THE LLC, 344 E 51
st
Street 2A, NY 10002.
48. Latimer is the only listed signatory on the Chase Business Signature Card for the
bank accounts for the Latimer 344 E 51
st
LLCs.
49. Latimer’s signature represents that he applied to open deposit accounts for the
Latimer 344 E 51
st
LLCs, and that he has the authority to transact business on behalf of these
LLCs.
50. Defendant IVYROCK EQUITIES LLC (“Ivyrock”) is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of New York, with an address for process service of 162
West 4th Street #3, New York, NY, United States, 10014.
51. According to Chase records, Latimer is the controlling—and only—member of
Ivyrock.
52. Latimer appears to operate Ivyrock as his primary LLC and uses it as the center
of his illegal short-term rental operation.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
16 of 45
13
53. Before December 2019, Latimer routed all Airbnb revenue through Ivyrock
directly.
54. After December 2019, Latimer shifted his business structure so that the Latimer
344 E 51
st
LLCs received Airbnb revenue first, and then funds were moved via wire transfers to
Ivyrock.
55. Thereafter, Latimer distributed Airbnb revenue from Ivyrock to himself and to
Apex—Esther Yip’s ownership LLC for the Subject Building.
56. Thus, Latimer funneled illegal Airbnb profits through at least two of his LLCs
before he issued money to his personal accounts, demonstrating that Latimer likely knew his
operation was illegal and was attempting to hide it from the City.
57. Latimer opened Chase bank accounts for the Latimer 344 E 51
st
LLCs only
several months after the City conducted an administrative code inspection of the Subject
Building on June 6, 2019, where the City found evidence of transient use in response to a 311
complaint
4
—suggesting that Latimer instituted a more complex business structure for receiving
short-term rental revenue for unlawful stays in order to avoid the City’s detection/enforcement
efforts.
58. According to Chase records, Latimer directed around $1,233,000 in Airbnb
revenue to Ivyrock Equities LLC from January 2018 to December 2019.
59. According to Chase records, Latimer directed around $987,729 in Airbnb revenue
to the Latimer 344 E 51
st
LLCs after their creation, in late 2019, to early 2022:
i. Anna TB LLC received around $69,825 in Airbnb payments;
ii. Dani TB LLC received around $84,715 in Airbnb payments;
4
Publicly available 311 complaint 1509796 complained of “constant coming and going of people with suitcases. I
sometimes observe another person greeting them with key for access.”
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
17 of 45
14
iii. Michael and Erin LLC received around $85,321 in Airbnb payments;
iv. Nadia TB LLC received around $70,396 in Airbnb payments;
v. T Bae 4 Bee LLC received around $164,572 in Airbnb payments;
vi. T Bay 3A LLC received around $90,359 in Airbnb payments;
vii. Turtle B 2 Be LLC received around $118,679 in Airbnb payments;
viii. Turtle Bae 1 Bee LLC received around $137,385 in Airbnb payments; and
ix. Turtle Bay 2 Ayy LLC received around $138,699 in Airbnb payments.
B. THE OWNER DEFENDANTS: ESTHER YIP; APEX EAST MANAGEMENT
LLC; and THE LAND AND BUILDING KNOWN AS 344 E 51 STREET, BLOCK
1343, LOT 134
59. Defendant ESTHER YIP, a natural person, is the authorized signatory and
manager of Defendant APEX EAST MANAGEMENT LLC.
60. Defendant APEX EAST MANAGEMENT LLC is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, and owner of record of the
Subject Building 344 East 51st Street.
61. Yip purchased the Subject Building through Apex in 2016, which was after the
City inspected it and issued six summonses for illegal transient occupancy to the prior owner in
2011.
62. The Subject Building’s 2011 transient occupancy violations are public record and
should have been known to a purchaser exercising any due diligence in buying a multi-million-
dollar property.
63. Further, after purchasing the Subject Building, Apex received 11 more violations
related to illegal transient use.
64. Apex admitted fault and paid three violations that were issued on June 6, 2019.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
18 of 45
15
65. But 311 complaints continued and the City inspected the Subject Building again
in January and March 2022, finding ongoing illegal transient use and a lack of required fire
safety measures and issuing violations each time.
66. Thus, despite knowledge of illegal trainset use, Yip and Apex have permitted this
public nuisance to persist unabated in the Subject Building.
67. Defendant THE LAND AND BUILDING KNOWN AS 344 E 51 STREET,
BLOCK 1343, LOT 134, COUNTY, CITY, AND STATE OF NEW YORK, is the real property
where the activities complained of have taken place and continue to take place.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. OSE Inspected and Repeatedly Found Hazardous Transient Accommodations and
Violating Conditions Conducted and Permitted by Defendants in the Subject Building
68. Prior to filing this action, DOB Building Inspectors and FDNY Fire Protection
Inspectors assigned to OSE (the “OSE Inspection Team”) performed a total of four
administrative code inspections at the Subject Building to determine whether it was being
operated in compliance with applicable law and, if it was not, whether the unlawful use,
occupancy and arrangement of the building posed a danger to the health, welfare and safety of
the occupants or of the public generally.
69. On each occasion, the OSE Inspection Team found that Defendants had converted
the Subject Building to illegal transient use, and had thereby endangered the public health,
welfare and safety.
70. Since 2011, in response to at least five publicly available 311 complaints that the
Subject Building was being used as an illegal “Airbnb hotel,” the OSE Inspection Team issued
Owner Defendants a total of 17 Notices of Violation (“NOVs”), or “Summonses,” for illegal
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
19 of 45
16
short-term rentals and resulting building safety violations found in the Subject Building—14 of
which have been Class 1 immediately hazardous violations.
71. The City has issued 11 of the 17 total NOVs to Defendant Apex since Yip
purchased the Subject Building through Apex in 2016—nine of which have been Class 1
immediately hazardous violations.
72. Defendant Apex will be subject to tens of thousands of dollars in additional
administrative penalties from the City’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”)
once all 11 NOVs are adjudicated, separate and apart from the statutory NAL and CPL penalties
Defendants are liable for after they failed to stop their illegal advertising and occupancy until the
City commenced this action.
A. OSE Inspected and Repeatedly Found Public Nuisances, Including Illegal Short-Term
Rentals, in Subject Building 344 E 51 Street
73. The legal occupancy of a building is determined based on records maintained by
DOB.
74. For buildings constructed after 1938, the applicable record is called the certificate
of occupancy (“C of O”).
75. Once a C of O is issued for a given building, it becomes the governing document
for the use and occupancy of that building. New York City Charter § 645(b)(3)(e).
5
76. The applicable DOB record that governs the legal use and occupancy of Subject
Building 344 E 51st is C of O No. 102051930, dated March 9, 2001, which states the Subject
5
New York City Charter § 645(b)(3)(e) provides that “every certificate of occupancy shall, unless and until set
aside, vacated or modified by the board of standards and appeals or a court of competent jurisdiction, be and remain
binding and conclusive upon all agencies and officers of the city … and no order, direction or requirement affecting
or at variance with any matter set forth in any certificate of occupancy shall be made or issued by any agency or
officer of the city … unless and until the certificate is set aside, vacated or modified by the board of standards and
appeals or a court of competent jurisdiction upon application of the agency, department, commission, officer or
member thereof seeking to make or issue such order, direction or requirement.”
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
20 of 45
17
Building is a five-story Multiple Dwelling with a permissible use and occupancy of eight total
apartments and one doctor’s office.
77. Therefore, the only legal occupancy of all apartments within 344 E 51 Street is as
permanent residential dwelling units for occupancy of 30 consecutive days or more.
78. Despite this, members of the OSE Inspection Team have observed Defendants’
illegal and hazardous short-term rentals in the Subject Building on multiple occasions since
September 2011.
6
a. June 6, 2019 OSE Inspection and Illegal Transient Use Found in Subject Building
344 East 51st Street
79. On June 6, 2019, DOB Inspector Mohammad Yusuf (“Inspector Yusuf”) and other
members of the OSE Inspection Team conducted an administrative code inspection of Subject
Building 344 East 51st Street in response to a publicly available 311 complaint of a “[c]onstant
coming and going of people with suitcases. I sometimes observe another person greeting them
with key for access.”
80. Inspector Yusuf encountered a transient guest in apartment 1B of the Subject
Building who stated that he was from Italy, and that he was staying with 5 other individuals who
had booked their stay from June 4, 2019 through June 10, 2019 for €3000 through an Italian
website.
81. The inspection team was provided access to the apartment and took pictures of the
guest’s booking confirmation.
6
On September 15, 2011, DOB Assistant Chief Inspector Vladimir Pugach (“Assistant Chief Pugach”) and several
other members of the OSE Inspection Team conducted an administrative code inspection of Subject Building 344 E
51st Street. Assistant Chief Pugach issued 6 summonses related to illegal transient use in the building to its then-
building owner, who was found in violation of all summonses and paid fines.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
21 of 45
18
82. Based upon his observations and interview, Inspector Yusuf issued the following
three summonses to Defendant APEX EAST MANAGEMENT LLC:
Summons #
Date:
Violation Noted:
Severity:
Remedy:
35425447H
6/6/19
Permanent dwelling
used/converted for other than
permanent residential purposes.
Class 2
Discontinue illegal
use.
35425448J
6/6/19
Failure to comply with automatic
fire sprinkler requirements for
transient use.
Class 1
Discontinue illegal
use.
35425449L
6/6/19
Failure to provide fire alarm
system for transient use.
Class 1
Discontinue illegal
use.
83. Defendant APEX EAST MANAGEMENT LLC admitted fault and paid penalties
on all violations totaling $4,950.
b. January 4, 2022 OSE Inspection and Illegal Transient Use Found in Subject Building
344 East 51st Street
84. On January 4, 2022, DOB Inspector Gemmell Portelli (“Inspector Portelli”) and
other members of the OSE Inspection Team conducted another administrative code inspection of
Subject Building 344 East 51st Street in response to a publicly available 311 complaint that stated
the Subject Building was being used as an “Airbnb hotel” despite the owner previously receiving
a violation for such in 2019.
85. Inspector Portelli interviewed a family of transient guests outside the Subject
Building who were staying in apartment 2A, and who had booked their stay from December 12,
2021 through January 4, 2021 on Airbnb for $1,500.
86. The guests stated that the listed address on Airbnb was incorrect, and that they
received instructions right before they checked in to go to 344 East 51
st
Street instead.
87. Based upon his interview, Inspector Portelli issued the following four summonses
to Defendant APEX EAST MANAGEMENT LLC:
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
22 of 45
19
Summons #
Date:
Violation Noted:
Severity:
Remedy:
35592396P
1/4/22
Permanent dwelling used/converted
for other than permanent residential
purposes.
Class 2
Discontinue
illegal use.
35592397R
1/4/22
Failure to provide fire alarm system
for transient use.
Class 1
Discontinue
illegal use.
35592398Z
1/4/22
Failure to comply with automatic fire
sprinkler requirements for transient use.
Class 1
Discontinue
illegal use.
35592399K
1/4/22
Failure to provide number of required
means of egress for every floor.
Class 1
Discontinue
illegal use.
c. March 17, 2022 OSE Inspection and Illegal Transient Use Found in Subject Building
344 East 51
st
Street
88. On March 17, 2022, DOB Inspector Ricky Fontenelle (“Inspector Fontenelle”) and
several other members of the OSE Inspection Team returned to Subject Building 344 East 51st
Street for another administrative code inspection in response to another publicly available 311
complaint, this time of “groups with suitcases on multiple occasions entering and exiting this
building. Sometimes they are getting into/out of airport shuttles,” and discovered multiple instances
of illegal transient activity in Apartments 1A, 2A, 2B, and 3A.
89. The transient guests found in 1A, 2A, 2B, and 3A all booked their stays through
Airbnb for less than 30 days, and Inspector Fontenelle took photos of the apartments and booking
confirmations that he was provided access to.
90. Based upon his observations and interviews with the transient guests, Inspector
Fontenelle issued the following four summonses to the building owner, Defendant APEX EAST
MANAGEMENT LLC:
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
23 of 45
20
Summons #
Date:
Violation Noted:
Severity:
Remedy:
35634880J
3/17/22
Permanent dwelling used/converted
for other than permanent residential
purposes.
Recurring Condition Aggravated I
per 1 RCNY 102-01(f).
Per 28-202.1 & 1 RCNY 102-01,
additional Class 1 daily or Class 2
monthly penalty may apply.
Class 1
Discontinue
illegal occupancy.
35634881L
3/17/22
Failure to comply with automatic fire
sprinkler requirements for transient
use.
Class 1
Discontinue
illegal occupancy.
35634882N
3/17/22
Failure to provide number of required
means of egress for every floor.
Class 1
Discontinue
illegal occupancy.
35634883P
3/17/22
Failure to provide fire alarm system
for transient use.
Class 1
Discontinue
illegal occupancy.
II. In Addition to OSE Inspections, Defendants’ Illegal and Hazardous Transient Rental
Operation Is Also Evidenced in Subpoenaed Airbnb Records
60. In addition to repeated 311 complaints and OSE’s findings of illegal conversion to
transient occupancy, Defendants illegal and hazardous short-term rental operation is also
confirmed through Airbnb records.
91. Airbnb records show that from January 2018 to March 2022, Latimer received
more than $2 million in payouts for illegal short-term rentals in the Subject Building and several
other New York City buildings.
92. Latimer and his corporate entities created over 30 distinct Airbnb host accounts
used to advertise 85 separate Airbnb listings, completed over 2,200 illegal short-term
reservations, and deceived over 6,500 guests who stayed in the Subject Building.
93. Earlier host accounts created by Defendant Latimer in 2018 often used his real
name (e.g., Airbnb Host ID No. 106746308, “Arron Latimer” and Airbnb Host ID No.
69191994, “Arron Latimer”).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
24 of 45
21
94. However, by 2020, Latimer began to move away from using his own name and
solely used numerous fake accounts to post his illegal listings, with many accounts using stock
photos from commercial and tourism websites to create his various host profiles—for example, a
host account named “Lucy” utilized photographs from the St. Lawrence County Tourism website
and a host account named “Maria” utilized photographs from an artist named Hojati.
95. Thus, Latimer purposefully misled and endangered consumers through the use of
fake profiles and listings that made no mention of the illegality or hazards of the transient stays
Latimer advertised.
96. Guest reviews reflect Latimer’s misleading business practices; guests complained
of robotic or automated communications and the physical conditions of the apartments—guests
described the location as “astonishingly dirty” with complaints of mold, soiled linens, and blood
stains.
97. Other guests warned that future visitors should “be aware that the address or
listing is different than the actual location” posing a significant concern for travelers unfamiliar
with the city, and reviews revealed that some guests felt as though they were communicating
with a robot or third-party agency as indicated by autogenerated responses to inquiries.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
98. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
99. A merchant impliedly represents that the products and services which she or he
advertises and sells are both legal and safe.
100. Moreover, the CPL, Admin. Code § 20-700, et seq., provides that “[n]o person
shall engage in any deceptive or unconscionable trade practice in the sale, lease, rental or loan or
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
25 of 45
22
in the offering for sale, lease, rental, or loan of any consumer goods or services, or in the
collection of consumer debts.” Admin. Code § 20-700.
101. Admin. Code § 20-701 defines a deceptive trade practice as:
Any false, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral, written, digital,
or electronic statement, visual description or other representation
or omission of any kind made in connection with the sale, lease,
rental, or loan or in connection with the offering for sale, lease,
rental, or loan of consumer goods or services . . . which has the
capacity, tendency or effect of directly or indirectly deceiving or
misleading consumers. Deceptive trade practices include but are
not limited to: ... (2) the use, in any representation, of
exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact, if such
use of, or failure to state, a material fact deceives or tends to
deceive.
102. Defendants have breached their implied warranty and committed deceptive trade
practices by offering and advertising illegal transient occupancy in permanent residential
buildings.
103. Defendants’ written statements and advertisements inducing tourists and other
visitors to New York City to book accommodations in Class “A” multiple dwellings for stays of
less than 30 days, such rentals being illegal and unsafe, have by false representations and
omissions of material fact misled or deceived or tended to mislead and deceive consumers as to
the use and condition of those accommodations. Defendants have thereby committed deceptive
trade practices in violation of § 20-700 of the Consumer Protection Law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL OCCUPANICES IN MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
IN VIOLATION OF THE ADVERTISING ACT
104. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
26 of 45
23
105. MDL § 121(1) and Admin. Code § 27-287.1(1) (collectively, the “Advertising
Act”) prohibit advertising a Class A multiple dwelling unit for other than permanent residence
use:
It shall be unlawful to advertise occupancy or use of dwelling units
in a class A multiple dwelling for occupancy that would violate
subdivision eight of section four of the multiple dwelling law
defining a "class A" multiple dwelling as a multiple dwelling that
is occupied for permanent residence purposes.
106. Subdivision eight of section four of the multiple dwelling law, MDL § (4)(8)(a),
provides that “A class A multiple dwelling shall only be used for permanent residence purposes,”
the term “permanent residence purposes” being defined by the statute to “consist of occupancy of
a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty consecutive days or more….”
107. MDL § 121(2) and Admin. Code § 27-287.1(2) impose a penalty of $1,000 for the
first violation of Admin. Code § 27-287.1(1), $5,000 for the second violation, and $7,500 for the
third and subsequent violations:
108. MDL § 121(3) and Admin. Code §27-287.1(3) define the word “advertise” as
follows:
For the purposes of this section, the term “advertise” shall mean
any form of communication for marketing that is used to
encourage, persuade or manipulate viewers, readers or listeners
into contracting for goods and/or services as may be viewed
through various media including, but not limited to, newspapers,
magazines, flyers, handbills, television commercials, radio,
signage, direct mail, websites or text messages.
109. MDL § 121(4) and Admin. Code §27-287.1(2) authorize the Mayor’s Office of
Special Enforcement to enforce Admin. Code §27-287.1.
110. The Subject Building’s C of O authorizes only permanent occupancy of 30 days or
more.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
27 of 45
24
111. Defendants created or maintained nearly 80 separate Airbnb listings advertising the
unlawful short-term occupancy of the Subject Building resulting in over 2,200 Airbnb
reservations in violation of the Advertising Act.
THRID CAUSE OF ACTION
STATUTORY PUBLIC NUISANCE – BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
ILLEGAL CONVERSION FROM RESIDENTIAL USE TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
112. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
113. In 1977, the City Council enacted the Nuisance Abatement Law (codified as
amended as Admin. Code § 7-701 et seq.), finding that:
Public nuisances exist in the City of New York in the operation of certain
commercial establishments and the use or alteration of property in flagrant
violation of the building code, zoning resolution, … multiple dwelling law … all
of which interfere with the interest of the public in the quality of life and total
community environment, the tone of commerce in the city, property values and
the public health, safety, and welfare; the council further finds that the continued
occurrence of such activities and violations is detrimental to the health, safety,
and welfare of the people of the city of New York …
Admin. Code § 7-701.
114. Under Admin. Code § 7-703(d), any premises that is in violation of Admin. Code §
28-210.3 is deemed to be a public nuisance.
115. Admin. Code § 28-210.3, in turn, states that:
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity who owns or occupies a multiple
dwelling or dwelling unit classified for permanent residence purposes to use or
occupy, offer or permit the use or occupancy or to convert for use or occupancy
such multiple dwelling or dwelling unit for other than permanent residence
purposes. For the purposes of this section a conversion in use of a dwelling unit
may occur irrespective of whether any physical changes have been made to such
dwelling unit.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
28 of 45
25
116. As alleged above, the City has determined that Defendants have converted
permanent residential dwelling units in the Subject Building for another use, specifically, for
illegal transient use – less than 30-day occupancy.
117. Notwithstanding the NOVs/Summonses issued to Defendants providing them with
notice of the illegality of the transient occupancies, some of which Defendants acknowledged
and paid penalties for, Defendants continue to illegally operate and manage the Subject Building
for such unlawful occupancies.
118. Pursuant to Admin. Code §§ 7-706(a) and 7-714, the City is entitled to a judgment
against Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in
concert with them, permanently restraining such public nuisances.
119. Defendants have intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public
nuisance alleged in this cause of action.
120. Pursuant to Admin. Code § 7-706(h), the City is entitled to a judgment against
Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in concert
with them, permanently enjoining them from using or occupying, or maintaining, managing,
operating, or permitting the use or occupancy of any of the units in the Subject Building for
transient use and occupancy, and further ordering that they pay a separate penalty of $1,000 for
each day that Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public nuisances
alleged in this cause of action.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
STATUTORY PUBLIC NUISANCE – BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY
121. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
29 of 45
26
122. Under Admin. Code § 7-703(d), any premises that is in violation of Admin. Code §
28-118.3.2 is deemed to be a public nuisance.
123. Admin. Code § 28-118.3.2 provides that no change in use or occupancy
inconsistent with the last-issued certificate of occupancy shall be made unless and until a new
certificate of occupancy is first obtained from DOB authorizing such change.
124. As summarized above, the City has determined that there has been a change in use
or occupancy at the Subject Building that is inconsistent with the last-issued certificate of
occupancy or otherwise applicable DOB record, and that Defendants have altered such use and
occupancy in the Subject Building without first obtaining a permit or new certificate of
occupancy from DOB authorizing such change.
125. Pursuant to Admin. Code §§ 7-706(a) and 7-714, the City is entitled to a judgment
against Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in
concert with them, permanently restraining such public nuisances.
126. Defendants have intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public
nuisances alleged in this cause of action.
127. Pursuant to Admin. Code § 7-706(h), the City is entitled to a judgment against
Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in concert
with them, permanently enjoining them from using or occupying, or maintaining, managing,
operating, or permitting the use or occupancy of any of the units in the Subject Building for
transient use and occupancy, and further ordering that they pay a separate penalty of $1,000 for
each day that Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public nuisances
alleged in this cause of action.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
30 of 45
27
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
STATUTORY PUBLIC NUISANCE – BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
WORK WITHOUT PERMIT
128. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
129. Under Admin. Code § 7-703(d), any premises that is in violation of Admin. Code §
28-105.1 is deemed to be a public nuisance.
130. Admin. Code § 28-105.1 states that “[i]t shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge,
alter … or change the use or occupancy of any building ... unless and until a written permit
therefore shall have been issued by the commissioner in accordance with the requirements of this
code.”
131. Defendants altered the use and occupancy of the Subject Building from Class A
permanent occupancy to Class B transient use and did so without approval or permit from DOB.
132. Pursuant to Admin. Code §§ 7-706(a) and 7-714, the City is entitled to a judgment
against Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in
concert with them, permanently restraining such public nuisances.
133. Defendants have intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public
nuisances alleged in this cause of action.
134. Pursuant to Admin. Code § 7-706(h), the City is entitled to a judgment against
Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in concert
with them, permanently enjoining them from using or occupying, or maintaining, managing,
operating, or permitting the use or occupancy of any of the units in the Subject Building for
transient use and occupancy, and further ordering that they pay a separate penalty of $1,000 for
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
31 of 45
28
each day that Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public nuisances
alleged in this cause of action.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
STATUTORY PUBLIC NUISANCE – FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN CODE
COMPLIANCE
135. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
136. Under the Nuisance Abatement Law, Admin. Code § 7-703(d), any premises that is
in violation of Admin. Code § 28-301.1 is deemed to be a public nuisance.
137. Admin. Code § 28-301.1 requires that all buildings and all parts thereof be
“maintained in a safe condition,” and that “[a]ll service equipment, means of egress, materials,
devices, and safeguards that are required in a building by the provisions of this code, the 1968
building code or other applicable laws or rules, or that were required by law when the building
was erected, altered, or repaired, shall be maintained in good working condition.”
138. At all relevant times of their inspections, the OSE Inspection Team observed
conditions constituting a failure to maintain the Subject Building in a code-compliant condition.
139. Upon information and belief, those conditions continue unabated to date.
140. As a result of the foregoing, there exist public nuisances at the Subject Building.
141. Pursuant to Admin. Code §§ 7-706(a) and 7-714, the City is entitled to a judgment
against Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in
concert with them, permanently restraining such public nuisances.
142. Defendants have intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public
nuisances alleged in this cause of action.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
32 of 45
29
143. Pursuant to Admin. Code § 7-706(h), the City is entitled to a judgment against
Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in concert
with them, permanently enjoining them from using or occupying, or maintaining, managing,
operating, or permitting the use or occupancy of any of the units in the Subject Building for
transient use and occupancy, and further ordering that they pay a separate penalty of $1,000 for
each day that Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public nuisances
alleged in this cause of action.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
STATUTORY PUBLIC NUISANCE – CRIMINAL NUISANCE
144. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
145. Under Admin. Code § 7-703(l), any building, erection or place wherein there is
occurring a criminal nuisance as defined in Penal Law § 240.45 is a public nuisance.
146. Pursuant to Penal Law § 240.45(1), a person has committed a criminal nuisance
when, “[b]y conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he
knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of
a considerable number of persons.”
147. Defendants have unreasonably and unlawfully created and maintained conditions
which seriously endanger the life and safety of numerous persons, including both those who have
booked transient accommodations at the Subject Building and other persons who lawfully reside
around the Subject Building, in violation of their legal and permissible use and occupancy.
148. These violations were confirmed to be Class 1 (Immediately Hazardous) violations,
including a lack of fire safety measures required to be provided for transient occupancies.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
33 of 45
30
149. Additional fire safety violations have led to the issuance of at least one FDNY
Violation Order.
150. The hazardous conditions at the Subject Building has continued uncorrected over a
substantial period of time, notwithstanding NOVs and orders from the DOB Commissioner, and
findings by OATH.
151. Defendants have intentionally and knowingly endangered the safety of a
considerable number of persons.
152. As a result of the foregoing, there exists a public nuisance at the Subject Building.
153. Pursuant to Admin. Code §§ 7-706(a) and 7-714, the City is entitled to a judgment
against Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in
concert with them, permanently restraining such public nuisance.
154. Pursuant to Admin. Code § 7-706(h), the City is entitled to a judgment against
Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in concert
with them, permanently enjoining them from using or occupying, or maintaining, managing,
operating, or permitting the use or occupancy of any of the units in the Subject Building for
transient use and occupancy, and further ordering that they pay a separate penalty of $1,000 for
each day that Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public nuisances
alleged in this cause of action.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW
155. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
156. MDL § (4)(8)(a) prohibits renting any unit in Class “A” multiple dwellings for less
than 30 consecutive days.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
34 of 45
31
157. The law provides that “[a] class A multiple dwelling shall only be used for
permanent residence purposes,” the term “permanent residence purposes” being defined by the
statute to “consist of occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for thirty
consecutive days or more … ”
158. Notwithstanding the requirements of the MDL, Defendants have advertised,
permitted, maintained and used, continue to advertise, permit, maintain, and use dwelling units at
the Subject Building for transient occupancies of less than 30 consecutive days, in violation of
the MDL.
159. Based on the OSE’s inspections of the Subject Building, at least seven of the eight
apartments in the Subject Building are being illegally used and occupied.
160. Pursuant to MDL § 306, the City is entitled to judgment against Defendants, their
agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting individually or in concert with them,
permanently enjoining them from using or occupying, or maintaining, managing, operating, or
permitting the use or occupancy of any of the units in the Subject Building for transient use and
occupancy as prohibited by the MDL, and further directing them to restore the Subject Building
to use and occupancy as permanent residences, as required by the MDL for Class “A” multiple
dwellings.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS – ILLEGAL CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY
161. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
162. Admin. Code § 28-118.3.1 prohibits an alteration or change in the use or occupancy
of any building unless and until a written permit has been issued by DOB in accordance with the
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
35 of 45
32
requirements of the Building Code, and a certificate of occupancy issued for the new use or
occupancy.
163. Admin. Code § 28-101.5 defines “alteration” to be “[a]ny construction, addition,
change of use or occupancy, or renovation to a building or structure in existence.”
164. Admin. Code § 28-118.3.2 provides that no change may be made in the
occupancy or use of an existing building which is inconsistent with the last issued certificate of
occupancy of such building or which would bring it under some special provision of the code or
other applicable law or regulation.
165. Admin. Code § 28-118.3.4 provides that a building in existence prior to January
1, 1938, and legally used or occupied without a certificate of occupancy may continue to be so
used only so long as there is no change in the existing use or occupancy.
166. Admin. Code § 28-118.3 provides that Admin. Code §§ 28-118.3.1 through 28-
118.3.4 apply to all completed buildings.
167. The legally permissible residential use and occupancy of the Subject Building is
for permanent residential occupancy.
168. Defendants have changed, or permitted to be changed, the use and occupancy of the
Subject Building contrary to their legally permissible use and occupancy, having done so without
first obtaining a certificate of occupancy for such changed use.
169. Thus, Defendants have permitted, directed and maintained the arrangement, use,
and occupancy of the Subject Building in violation of their legally permissible use and
occupancy.
170. Defendants are, therefore, in violation of Admin Code §§ 28-105.1, and 28-
118.3.1 through 28-118.3.4.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
36 of 45
33
171. Admin. Code §§ 28-205.1 and 28-202.1 provide that any person who shall violate
any provision of the building laws, rules or regulations enforceable by DOB shall be subject to
the payment of a civil penalty, to be recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the City in
any court of record.
172. By reason of the foregoing, pursuant to Admin. Code § 28-205.1, the City is
entitled to judgment against Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees and all persons acting
individually or in concert with them, permanently enjoining them from using or occupying or
permitting the use or occupancy of any of the units in the Subject Building for short-term,
transient use or occupancy of less than thirty days, and further directing them to restore the
Subject Building to the arrangement and occupancy permitted for it, and to comply with all other
sections of the Building Code.
173. Defendants have violated Admin. Code §§ 28-105.1 and 28-118.3.1 through 28-
118.3.4 at the Subject Building, all of which are enforceable by DOB.
174. Therefore, the City is entitled to a separate judgment against Defendants in the
amount set forth in Admin. Code § 28-202.1 for each violation of the laws referenced above,
which laws are enforceable by DOB.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
COMMON LAW NUISANCE
175. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
176. Defendants have advertised, operated, and maintained permanent residential units
for short-term stays of less than 30 days, creating serious safety risks for the transient occupants
of those units, significant security risks in buildings not equipped to handle the security problems
associated with transient occupancy, and a degradation in the quality and comfort of the
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
37 of 45
34
surrounding residents and neighbors, created by noise, filth, and the excessive traffic of unknown
and constantly changing individuals entering their places of abode.
177. The unlawful activities committed by Defendants and the unsafe building
conditions allowed by Defendants are detrimental to the welfare, property, and safety of the
citizens of the City of New York and the public at large.
178. They offend, interfere with and cause damage to the public in the exercise of
rights common to all, in a manner which endangers the property, safety and well-being of a
considerable number of persons.
179. Defendants are therefore maintaining a public nuisance as known at common law
and in equity jurisprudence.
180. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendants will continue their illegal
activities and will absorb the costs of any fines and penalties imposed upon them as routine
operating expenses.
181. Meanwhile, the City will be forced to continue expending its limited resources in
continued attempts to abate this harmful nuisance through administrative inspections,
summonses, and violation orders.
182. Thus, the City is entitled to a judgment against Defendants, their agents, assigns,
employees and all persons acting individually or in concert with them, permanently restraining
the above described common law public nuisance going on unabated within the Subject
Building.
183. Defendants have acted willfully, wantonly, and with a recklessness indicating an
improper motive, and have engaged in intentional misconduct and recklessly and wantonly
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
38 of 45
35
disregarded the safety, welfare, and rights of others in permitting and maintaining the aforesaid
common law public nuisance within the Subject Building.
184. Defendants have continued to engage in their illegal business, unabated.
185. Defendants actively permit rentals of permanent residence units to tourist and
visitors to New York City for stays of less than 30 days, knowing that this constitutes an illegal
occupancy.
186. Defendants have maintained this activity despite being put on notice by the City
through the issuance of repeated violations by DOB, ordering that they immediately cease the
transient occupancy violations.
187. The City is thus entitled to compensatory and punitive damages because of the
knowing and ongoing common law nuisance created, maintained, and continued by Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the City, demands judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. Declaring that Defendants and each of them had knowledge of the existence of the
unlawful acts complained of herein, and failed to take reasonable measures to abate such
unlawful activity;
2. Declaring that Defendants and each of them have managed, used, advertised, booked, and
operated numerous dwelling units at the Subject Building for illegal transient use and
occupancy though prohibited by State and local laws, and continue to manage, use,
advertise, book, and operate the Subject Building in a manner as to constitute deceptive
trade practices and a public nuisance;
3. With respect to the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to Admin. Code § 20-703, an
order:
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
39 of 45
36
a. Permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, employees or representatives, and
every person or entity acting individually or in concert with them, from further
violating the Consumer Protection Law and from committing the deceptive acts or
practices alleged herein; and
b. Imposing upon Defendants fines for each and every violation of the Consumer
Protection Law
7
:
i. For violations up until January 23, 2022, in the amount of $350 per violation
and $500 per “knowing” violation; and
ii. For violations on January 24, 2022 to such date Defendants take down their
illegal listings, in the amount of $2,500 per violation and $3,500 per
“knowing” violation under the new penalty structure imposed by Admin.
Code § 20-703(d)(1)(i); and
c. Compelling Defendants to pay in court all monies, property or other things, or
proceeds thereof, received as a result of their violations of the Consumer Protection
Law and directing that the amount of money or the property or other things recovered
be paid into an account from which shall be paid over to any and all persons who
purchased the goods or services during the period of violation such sum as was paid
by them in a transaction involving the prohibited acts or practices, plus any costs
incurred by such claimants in making and pursuing their complaints; and
7
On August 26, 2021, the City Council passed Local Law 98 of 2021, which amends the CPL, effective January 24,
2022. The amended CPL, among other things, increases the penalty amount per violation, from a range of $50-$350
per violation to $350-$2,500 per violation, with an increase in the amount for “knowing” violations from $500 per
violation to $3,500 per violation. In this case, the City seeks the increased penalties provided by the amended CPL
only for violations that occur on or after January 24, 2022.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
40 of 45
37
4. With respect to the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to § 27-287.1 of the
Administrative Code and § 121 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, an order:
a. imposing upon Defendants penalties for each illegal advertisement in violation of the
Advertising Act of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000);
5. With respect to the THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, AND SEVENTH CAUSES OF
ACTION, pursuant to Admin. Code §§ 7-706(a), 7-714, and 7-706(h):
a. Directing that the Subject Building shall be permanently and perpetually enjoined and
restrained as a place in or upon which to conduct, maintain, advertise, or continue the
public nuisances complained of herein by Defendants and by any other person or
persons;
b. Permanently restraining Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees or
representatives, and every person or entity acting individually or in concert with them
from in any way permitting the Subject Building to be used, advertised, or occupied
in any manner which violates the legally permitted use and occupancy for the
premises; and
c. Directing Defendants and each of them to pay to the City a separate penalty of $1,000
for each day that each of the Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or
permitted each public nuisance complained of in the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION,
and for each day that each of the Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or
permitted each public nuisance complained of in the FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
and for each day that each of the Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or
permitted each public nuisance complained of in the FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
and for each day that each of the Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
41 of 45
38
permitted each public nuisance complained of in the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION,
and for each day that each of the Defendants intentionally conducted, maintained or
permitted each public nuisance complained of in the SEVENTH CAUSE OF
ACTION;
6. With respect to the EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to Multiple Dwelling Law
§ 306:
a. Permanently restraining Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees or
representatives, and every person or entity acting individually or in concert with them
from in any way permitting the Subject Building to be used, advertised, or occupied
in any manner which violates the legal use and occupancy for the premises, as
permitted by MDL § 4 or other State and City laws;
7. With respect to the NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to Admin. Code §§ 28-205.1
and 28-202.1:
a. Permanently restraining Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees or
representatives, and every person or entity acting individually or in concert with them
from in any way permitting the Subject Building to be used, advertised, or occupied
in any manner which violates the legal use and occupancy for the premises, as
permitted by the MDL and the Building Code, or which violates the provisions of the
Building Code, which prohibit a change in the use or occupancy of a building without
first having obtained a written permit from DOB and a certificate of occupancy
authorizing a change in occupancy; and
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
42 of 45
39
b. Directing that Defendants and each of them pay to the City the maximum penalty set
forth in Admin. Code §§ 28-202.1 and 28-202.2 for each violation of the provisions
of the building laws;
8. With respect to the TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, pursuant to the common law doctrine
of public nuisance:
a. Permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, assigns, employees or
representatives, and every person or entity acting individually or in concert with
them, from conducting, maintaining or in any way permitting the common law public
nuisance described herein; and
b. Awarding the City compensatory damages in an amount to be set by the court, and
punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000 for the willful and wanton
perpetuation of a common law public nuisance by Defendants;
9. Pursuant to Admin. Code § 7-714(g), allowing, in addition to the costs and disbursements
allowed by the CPLR, the actual costs, expenses and disbursements of the City in
investigating, bringing and maintaining this action, and directing that the City have
execution therefor;
10. Taxing and allowing the costs and disbursements against Defendants and directing that
the City have execution therefor; and
11. Granting to the City such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper and
equitable.
Pursuant to section 130-1.1a of the Rules of the Chief Administrator, it is certified that, to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
43 of 45
40
circumstances, that the presentation of the papers attached hereto and the contentions contained
therein are not frivolous.
Dated: New York, New York
June 29, 2022
Hon. Sylvia Hinds-Radix
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attorney for Plaintiff
By: __ ______________________
Austin Hee
Special Assistant Corporation Counsel
Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement
22 Reade Street, 4
th
Floor
New York, NY 10007
Tel.: (212) 416-5266
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
44 of 45
VERIFICATTON
SHERYL
NEUFELD,
an
afforney
admitted
to
practice
before
the
courts
of
the State
of
New
York,
hereby affirms
the
following
to be true,
under
the
penalties
of
perjury
pursuant
to
c.P.L.R.2106:
I have been
duly designated
as Acting
Corporation
Counsel
of
the City
of New
York and,
as such,
I am an
officer of
the City
ofNew
York, a
petitioner in the
within action.
I
have read
the
foregoing
petition
and
know the
contents
thereof;
the same
are true
to
my knowledge
except
as
to
those
alleged on
information
and
belief, and
as to those
matters
I believe
them
to be
true.
The reason why
this verification
is
not made by
the
City of
New
York is
that it
is a
corporation.
My belief as
to all
matters
not stated
upon
my knowledge
is
based,upon
information
obtained
from
various departments
of the
city
governmentso from
statements
made
to me
by certain
officers
or agents
of the City
of
New York, and
from
statements,
affidavits
or affirmations
of other
persons.
Dated: New
York, New
York
June29,2022
SHER
ESQ.
CitY
V. ARRON
LATIMER,
IVYROCK
EQUITIES
LLC,
ANNA
TB
LLC,
DANI
TB LLC,
MICHAEL
AND
ERIN LLC,
NADIA
TB LLC,
T BAE
4 BEE
LLC,
T BAY 3A
LLC,
TURTLE
B
2 BE
LLC, TURTLE
BAE
I
BEE
LLC, TURTLE
BAY
2 AYY
LLC,
APEX
EAST
MANAGEMENT
LLC,
ESTHER
YIP,
THE
LAND
AND
BUILDING
KNOWN
AS 344
E 51
STREET,
BLOCK
I343,LOT
I34,
COLINTY,
CITY
AND
STATE
OF
NEW
YORK
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/12/2022 01:04 PM
INDEX NO. 452073/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/12/2022
45 of 45
