DOCSLIB.ORG

Examining Cooperative Conversion: an Analysis of Recent New York Legislation Robert M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Examining Cooperative Conversion: an Analysis of Recent New York Legislation Robert M Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 11 | Number 4 Article 11 1983 Examining Cooperative Conversion: An Analysis of Recent New York Legislation Robert M. Nelson Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Housing Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert M. Nelson, Examining Cooperative Conversion: An Analysis of Recent New York Legislation, 11 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1089 (1983). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol11/iss4/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXAMINING COOPERATIVE CONVERSION: AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT NEW YORK LEGISLATION I. Introduction New York City contains ninety-five percent of the cooperative hous- ing units in the United States.' The fundamental reasons for the proliferation of cooperative housing in New York City are historical, economic and social.2 A more specific factor is the New York State Legislature's support of conversion of residential real estate from rental to cooperative ownership. 3 This support has taken form in the most comprehensive set of laws and regulations in the nation dealing 4 with rental apartment conversion to cooperative housing. The most recent legislation in this area (the "Goodman-Grannis" bill)- provides a method whereby developers may convert residential 1. OFFICE OF POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, U.S. DEP'T OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE CONVERSION OF RENTAL HOUSING TO CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPERATIVES, PUB. No. PB 81-118234, A NATIONAL STUDY OF SCOPE, CAUSES AND IMPACTS: XI-1 (1980) [hereinafter cited as HUD STUDY]. 2. Id.at 2. See notes 35-53 & 59 infra and accompanying text. 3. The legislative finding in three recent bills dealing with conversion of rental housing to cooperative or condominium housing supports apartment conversion as sound public policy and a means of "preserving, stabilizing and improving neighbor- hoods and the supply of sound housing accommodations .. " 1982 N.Y. Laws ch. 555, § 1; 1979 N.Y. Laws ch. 432, § 1; 1978 N.Y. Laws ch. 544, § 1. 4. See N.Y. GEN. Bus. LAW § 352-e (McKinney 1968 & Supp. 1982-1983), id. § 352-ee to -eeee (McKinney Supp. 1982-1983); N.Y. ADMIN. CODE tit. 13, § 18 (1982); see notes 102-35 & 152-65 infra and accompanying text for a discussion of legislation in this area. The only federal legislation directly affecting cooperative and condomin- ium conversion is the Condominium and Cooperative Protection and Abuse Relief Act of 1980 (Title VI, Housing and Community Development Act of 1980), Pub. L. No. 96-399, 94 Stat. 1672 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3616 (Supp. V 1981)). This Act encouraged the use of the condominium and cooperative forms of ownership as a way of meeting the shortage of adequate and affordable multi-family housing throughout the United States. At the same time, the Act aims at correcting and preventing abuse of long-term recreational and similar leases. HUD STUDY, supra note 1, at X-17 n.26. The Condominium and Cooperative Protection and Abuse Relief Act of 1980 provides very basic protection. This statute requires that tenants receive adequate notice of conversion and the first opportunity to purchase the units. All other attempts at federal legislation, including a bill requiring a conversion moratorium, have failed to pass Congress. See, e.g., Condominium Act of 1979, S. 612, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 125 CONG. REC. 4637-45 (1979), and its companion bill H.R. 2792, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 125 CONG. REC. 4702 (1979); H.R. 5175, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 125 CONG. REC. 23,134 (1979). 5. N.Y. GEN. Bus. LAW § 352-eeee (McKinney Supp. 1982-1983). New York State Senator Goodman and Assemblyman Grannis are two major sponsors of this legislation. 1089 1090 FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. XI rental housing in New York City to cooperative housing without obtaining an agreement to purchase a cooperative apartment from any of the existing tenants." Under this method, tenants who do not desire to purchase their apartments as cooperatives may remain in the targeted building indefinitely.7 In order to initiate this "noneviction" plan, a developer must be able to show that potential purchasers- tenant or non-tenant-will purchase at least fifteen percent of the apartment units in a targeted building." The only legal obligation of these potential purchasers is to indicate a desire to move into the purchased apartment when and if it becomes vacant." As a result of this procedure, landlord-developers may convert rental units to coop- erative units without having to confront either individual tenants or tenant organizations. 10 By contrast, the "noneviction" procedure for cooperative conver- sion in Nassau, Rockland and Westchester Counties requires that a developer be able to show that existing tenants will purchase at least fifteen percent of the apartment units in a targeted building.' In these counties, non-tenant purchasers cannot be included in the fifteen percent requirement. 12 In New York City, the eviction approach to cooperative conversion allows a landlord-developer to evict non-purchasing tenants when at least fifty-one percent of the tenants agree to purchase their apart- ments. 3 The non-purchasing tenants have the longer of three years or the expiration of their lease to vacate their apartments once an evic- tion type of cooperative conversion has been approved by the New York State Attorney General's office.14 Despite the fact that the noneviction approach of Goodman-Gran- nis is less harsh on New York City tenants than an eviction scheme, the ability of a landlord-developer to convert rental units without tenant support has been criticized. Specifically, the Goodman-Grannis legis- lation may result in increased tenant harassment, 5 an increase in the 6. Id. § 352-eeee(1)(b), (d), (2)(c)(i). 7. Id. § 352-eeee(2)(c)(ii), (vi). 8. Id. § 352-eeee(1)(b), (d), (2)(c)(i). .9. Id. § 352-eeee(1)(b), (2)(c)(i). 10. "[W]ithout such an insider percentage sponsors can ignore the tenants' de- mands as long as there is a market for outside purchasers, many of whom buy not because they want a place to live but for speculative reasons." McKee, How the City Got A New Co-op Law, CITY LIMITS, Aug.-Sept. 1982, at 26. 11. N.Y. GEN. Bus. LAW § 352-eee(1)(b), (8) (McKinney Supp. 1982-1983). 12. Id. 13. Id. § 352-eeee(1)(c). 14. Id. § 352-eeee(2)(d)(ii). 15. See notes 159 & 161-62 inJra and accompanying text. 1983] COOPERATIVE CONVERSION 1091 number of buildings left unattended through apartment speculation,' 7 and the undermining of rent regulations.1 This Note will discuss the impact of the Goodman-Grannis legisla- tion on tenant and landlord interests in the cooperative conversion process in New York City. Initially, cooperative housing will be de- fined in terms of its relationship to condominium ownership. In addi- tion, the development of cooperative housing will be explored. Fi- nally, relevant New York case law and the framework of cooperative conversion in New York State will be examined. This Note concludes that the ability of landlord-developers to meet the fifteen percent requirement of the Goodman-Grannis noneviction approach by the use of non-tenant purchasers leaves existing tenants without any lever- age in the conversion process. Accordingly, adequate protection of New York City residents requires landlord-developers to meet the fifteen percent requirement solely from existing tenants. II. Cooperative Housing and Cooperative Conversion The most common form of cooperative housing in the United States and the type most frequently used in New York State is the corporate form.' 8 Title to the entire premises is vested in a corporation leasing specific apartments to the tenant.' 9 Three essential documents are necessary to create a cooperative corporate organization: (1) a corpo- rate charter or certificate of incorporation, (2) a set of by-laws and (3) a proprietary lease or occupancy agreement (certificate of member- 2 ship) .0 These documents constitute the contract between the tenants and the corporation. 21 A proprietary lease sets forth the number of shares of the lessor corporation owned by the tenant-shareholder. 22 16. See notes 159 & 163-64 infra and accompanying text. 17. See note 165 infra and accompanying text. 18. 2 P. ROHAN & M. RESNICK, COOPERATIVE HOUSING, LAW AND PRACTICE § 2.01[i], at 2-2.1 (1982) [hereinafter cited as ROHAN & RESNICK]; C. SMITH & R. BOYER, SURVEY OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 445, 446 (1971) [hereinafter cited as SMITH & BOYER]. Prior to the advent of condominium living the term cooperative was used to mean several types of organizations where occupants of individual units of a multi- family structure sought to acquire advantages of joint ownership. Id.; note that § 352 of the New York General Business Law does not contain a general statutory defini- tion of a cooperative corporation. See ROHAN & RESNICK, supra, § 5A.03, at 5A-12 n.18. However, the New York Cooperative Corporation Law does give a general definition of a non-profit cooperative corporation. N.Y. Coop. CORP. LAW § 3(c)-(d) (McKinney 1951 & SuPp. 1982-1983). See I.R.C. § 216(b) (1976 & Supp. V 1981) for the Internal Revenue Service definition. 19. ROHAN & RESNICK, supra note 18, § 2.01[4], at 2-8. 20. Id.; see N.Y. Coop. CORP. LAW §§ 11, 16, 40 (McKinney 1951 & Supp. 1982- 1983). 21. ROHAN & RESNICK, supra note 18, § 2.01[4], at 2-8.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Common Law Powers of the New York State Attorney General
    THE COMMON LAW POWERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Bennett Liebman* The role of the Attorney General in New York State has become increasingly active, shifting from mostly defensive representation of New York to also encompass affirmative litigation on behalf of the state and its citizens. As newly-active state Attorneys General across the country begin to play a larger role in national politics and policymaking, the scope of the powers of the Attorney General in New York State has never been more important. This Article traces the constitutional and historical development of the At- torney General in New York State, arguing that the office retains a signifi- cant body of common law powers, many of which are underutilized. The Article concludes with a discussion of how these powers might influence the actions of the Attorney General in New York State in the future. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 96 I. HISTORY OF THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ................................ 97 A. The Advent of Affirmative Lawsuits ............. 97 B. Constitutional History of the Office of Attorney General ......................................... 100 C. Statutory History of the Office of Attorney General ......................................... 106 II. COMMON LAW POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . 117 A. Historic Common Law Powers of the Attorney General ......................................... 117 B. The Tweed Ring and the Attorney General ....... 122 C. Common Law Prosecutorial Powers of the Attorney General ................................ 126 D. Non-Criminal Common Law Powers ............. 136 * Bennett Liebman is a Government Lawyer in Residence at Albany Law School. At Albany Law School, he has served variously as the Executive Director, the Acting Director and the Interim Director of the Government Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • WNYC-TV Moving Image Collection
    NEW YORK CITY MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES 31 CHAMBERS ST., NEW YORK, NY 10007 Guide to the moving images of WNYC-TV, circa 1943-1998 Collection REC 0047 Initial processing done prior to 2017 by MJ Robinson. Updated by Danielle Nista, Harvey Ngai, Abbey Wilson and Rachel Greer (2017-2019), Caroline De Oliveira (2019-2020), and Alexandra Hilton and Chris Nicols (2019-present). NYC Municipal Archives Guide to the moving images of WNYC-TV, circa 1943-1998 1 NYC Municipal Archives Guide to the moving images of WNYC-TV, circa 1943-1998 Summary Record Group: RG 093: New York City municipal broadcasting organizations Title of the Collection: WNYC-TV moving images Creator(s): New York (N.Y.). Municipal Broadcasting System; WNYC-TV (Television station : New York, N.Y.) Date: circa 1943-1998 Abstract: This collection consists of moving image materials produced by WNYC-TV from about 1943-1998. Collection #: REC 0047 Extent: 503 cubic feet Language: English Physical location: Materials are stored onsite at 31 Chambers St. Repository: New York City Municipal Archives, Department of Records and Information Services, 31 Chambers St., New York, NY 10007 Immediate source of acquisition: The films and a small number of tapes were transferred from the Municipal Broadcasting System (WNYC) to the Municipal Archives in 1984 (ACC-1984-025) and 2013 (ACC-2013-042). The bulk of the videotapes were transferred from the Department of Citywide Administrative Services in 2001 (ACC-2001-048) with additions received from WNYC Radio (now New York Public Radio) (ACC-2005-043 and ACC-2006-045), the Tamiment Library (ACC-2002-028) and through private donation (ACC-2013-057).
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'S Petition to Intervene and Request For
    7"04A1q57/8, ; GLEARWATER,INHuDsoN RIVER SLOOP .INC. DOCKETED USNRC December 10, 2007. December 11, 2007 (7:55am) OFFICE OF SECRETARY Office of the Secretary RULEMAKINGS AND U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Subject: IndianPoint License Renewal Proceeding, Docket No. 50-247-LR and 246-LR Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed for filing by mail, please find the original. and two copies of the following documents: 1. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.'s Petition to Intervene and Request for.. Hearing, with Certificate of Service. *,2. Notice of Appearance for Stephen C. Filler. (Notice of Appearanc~e for Manna Jo Greene was previously filed and served with Clearwater's request for -an extension). For electronic filing and service, please note that we have been unable to create reasonably-sized files of all of our Exhibits and Declarations. Rather than burden everyone's servers with huge files or multiple deliveries, we are only filing and serving the following documents electronically: Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing; .Notice of Appearance for Stephen C. Filler; Declaration of Jeffrey N.S Rumpf; Declaration of Manna Jo Green;- Declaration-of Stephen C. Filler with exhibits; Exhibit 4 to our Petition containing Declaration" of Joseph Mangano and Report; and Certificate of Service. If anyone would like electronic delivery of additional documents before receipt'of hard copies, we will make our best. efforts to do so. We apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you foryour consideration.'. Respectftully, Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director • Hudson River Sloop Clearwater - cc: Lawrence G.
    [Show full text]
  • Heye Foundation Records, 1890-1989
    Museum of the American Indian/ Heye Foundation Records, 1890-1989 by Jennifer O'Neal and Rachel Menyuk 2012 This finding aid was generated automatically on August 12, 2014 National Museum of the American Indian Archive Center 4220 Silver Hill Rd Suitland , Maryland, 20746-2863 Phone: 301.238.1400 [email protected] http://nmai.si.edu/explore/collections/archive/ Table of Contents Collection Overview......................................................................................................... 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 History of the Museum of the American Indian/Heye Foundation................................... 2 Scope and Content Note................................................................................................. 3 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 3 Names and Subject Terms ............................................................................................. 3 Container Listing.............................................................................................................. 6 Series 1: Directors, 1908-1990................................................................................ 6 Series 2: Board of Trustees, 1916-1990................................................................ 63 Series 3: Administrative, 1916-1989.....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Bronx County Historical Society JOURNAL Volume LVII Numbers 1&2 Spring/Fall 2020 Picturesque America
    The Bronx County Historical Society JOURNAL Volume LVII Numbers 1&2 Spring/Fall 2020 Picturesque America Cover Photo: Drawing of Hudson River, showing the Palisades along the Hudson River at the confluence of Spuyten Duyvil Creek, from , 1874. JOURNAL Volume LVII Numbers 1&2 Spring/Fall 2020 The Bronx County Historical Society Editorial Board G. Hermalyn Steven Payne Elizabeth Beirne Kelly Jutsum Peter Derrick Patrick Logan Larry Barazzotto Gil Walton The Bronx County Historical Society Journal Roger Wines The Bronx County Historical Society Journal © 2020 by The Bronx County Historical Society, IAnmc.erica: History and Life The Bronx County Historical Society Jouisr npaul blished by The Bronx County Historical Society, Inc. All correspondence should be addressed to 3309 Bainbridge Avenue, The Bronx, New York, 10467. Articles appearing in are abstracted, indexed and available in full-text format in . and its editors disclaim responsibility for statements made by the contributors. The Bronx County Historical Journal ISSN 0007-2249 Articles in www.bronxhistoricalsociety.coarng also be found on EBSCO host research databases and on our website. 1 THE BRONX COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY President Trustee Vice President Trustee Treasurer Trustee Secretary Trustee Ms. Jacqueline KutTnreurs, tee TRUSTEMEs.S Mei Sei FonTgr, ustee Mr. Anthony MoranTter,u stee Dr. G. Hermalyn, Trustee Mr. Patrick Logan, Mr. Joel Podgor, C.P.A., Mr. Larry Barazzotto, Prof. Lloyd Ultan, Mr. Steve Baktidy, Mr. Gil Walton, Mr. Robert Esnard, Mr. Jac Zadrima, Mayor of New York City President of the Borough of The Bronx HCoomnm. Bisislilo dner B olfa tshieo New York CitEy x-OFFIHCCooImOnm. Risusiboenner D oifa tzh,e J Nr.
    [Show full text]
  • 1992 Journal
    OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Reference Index Contents: page Statistics n General in Appeals in Arguments iv Attorneys iv Briefs iv Certiorari iv Costs v Judgments, Mandates and Opinions v Original Cases v Parties vi Records vi Rules vi Stays vii Conclusion vii (i) II STATISTICS AS OF JUNE 28, 1993 In Forma Paid Original Pauperis Total Cases Cases Number of cases on docket 12 2,441 4,792 7,245 Cases disposed of......... 1 2,099 4,256 6,366 Remaining on docket 11 342 536 889 Cases docketed during term: Paid cases 2,062 In forma pauperis cases 4,240 Original cases...... 1 Total.. 6,303 Cases remaining from last term 942 Total cases on docket 7,245 Cases disposed of 6,366 Number remaining on docket 889 Petitions for certiorari granted: In paid cases 79 In in forma pauperis cases 14 Appeals granted: In paid cases ., 4 In in forma pauperis cases 0 Total cases granted plenary review 97 Cases argued during term 116 Number disposed of by full opinions Ill Number disposed of by per curiam opinions 4 Number set for reargument next term 0 Cases available for argument at beginning of term 66 Disposed of summarily after review was granted 4 Original cases set for argument 3 Cases reviewed and decided without oral argument 109 Total cases available for argument at start of next term 46 Number of written opinions of the Court 107 Per curiam opinions in argued cases 4 Number of lawyers admitted to practice as of June 28, 1993: On written motion 2,775 On oral motion 1,345 Total 4,120 Ill GENERAL: page 1991 Term closed and 1992 Term convened October 5, 1992; adjourned October 4, 1993 1 Allotment order of Justices entered 972 Bryson, William C, named Acting Solicitor General Janu- ary 20, 1993; presents Attorney General Janet Reno; re- marks by the Chief Justice 619, 865 Clinton, President, attends investiture of Justice Ginsburg 971 Court adjourned to attend Inauguration of President Clin- ton January 20, 1993 425 Court closed December 24, 1992, by order of Chief Justice Days, Drew S., Solicitor General, presented to the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • 87260NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. l' National Criminal Justice Reference Service NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT ABRAMS This microfiche was produced from documents received for Aliil4§Rft inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise Ai *H4MW*"M control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. 1.0 11111 1.1 111111.25 11111 1.4 11111 /.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with ~. the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. "'-1 Points of view or opinions stated in this document are ' ' " those of the author(s) and do not represe;Jt the official ':', ..... position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. "." THE ANNUAL REPORT OF National Institute of Justice .~ , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL United States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 OF NEW YORK STATE 1979 '~ \ " : 8/11/83 • , ~.-, r NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT ABRAMS r; '. ?('. '-"i t.,' .• ..:., ,':"1, ~'''7<; r; !. :lo._ U.S. Department of Justice Nalionallnstitute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stat~d in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by New York Department of Law to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
    [Show full text]
  • The Fordham Urban Law Journal: Twenty Years of Progress, 19 Fordham Urb
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 19 | Number 4 Article 2 1992 The orF dham Urban Law Journal: Twenty Years of Progress Constantine N. Katsoris Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Legal Biography Commons Recommended Citation Constantine N. Katsoris, The Fordham Urban Law Journal: Twenty Years of Progress, 19 Fordham Urb. L.J. 915 (1992). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol19/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The orF dham Urban Law Journal: Twenty Years of Progress Cover Page Footnote Wilkinson Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law; B.S. 1953, Fordham University; J.D. 1957, Fordham University School of Law; LL.M. 1963, New York University School of Law; Public Member of Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration since its inception in 1977. Special thanks and appreciation is extended to Stephanie Fell, Jennifer Mone, Geoffrey Hader and Kathleen Smith who assisted in the compilation and preparation of this article. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol19/iss4/2 THE FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL: TWENTY YEARS OF PROGRESS Constantine N. Katsoris* I. Introduction Fordham Law School was founded in 1905 and originally located in Collins Hall on the main campus in the suburban setting at Rose Hill.' Despite its pristine setting, it soon became apparent that a loca- tion closer to the courts would be more practical.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vanishing Jew
    The Vanishing Jew Forward - February 4,1994 The Vanishing Jew Almost 20 years have elapsed since New Yorkers last elected a Jew - Jacob Javits to the U.S. Senate. More than 50 years have passed since Herbert Lehman, New York state's first and only Jewish governor, held office. New York City and state - once the sources for Jewish political talent in the nation - are no longer fertile ground for Jews seeking high elective office. Ironically, as more Jews have won elective office outside of New York, they have become notably less successful within New York City and state. Today, there are 10 Jewish members of the U.S. Senate, but none are from New York. While the neighboring states of New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania have elected Jews to the U.S. Senate - Frank Lautenberg, Joe Liebennan and Arlen Specter - the short-lived tradition of a Jewish senator from New York is now history. In two states, Wisconsin and California, both U.S. senators are Jewish, an achievement that was once unthinkable. Of the 33 Jewish members of the U.S. House of Representatives, eight are from California and just seven are from New York, although New York State has more than twice as many Jews as California. Furthermore, Jewish Congressmen from states other than New York, such as Sidney Yates, Howard Berman and Henry Waxman, have more power and seniority than most of the Jewish members of the Newl York state delegation, with the notable exception of Brooklyn Democrat Charles Schumer. The reduction in the size of the New York delegation and the 1990 redistricting - done in accord with the Voting Rights Act - led to the loss of three of New York City's most senior Jewish representatives: Stephen Solarz, William Green and James Scheuer.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Abrams
    Robert Abrams Robert Abrams Senior Counsel Robert Abrams advises a diverse range of clients including individuals and companies that are subject to civil and criminal investigations. Bob has been of particular value to corporations that have been the subject of an investigation by a state attorney general or by multi-state investigations by numerous state attorneys general. He has also been retained to conduct internal investigations where there has been New York suspicion or an allegation of wrongdoing within the Phone: 212-806-5546 corporation or not-for-profit organization. Bob has been part of Fax: 212-806-6006 [email protected] the Stroock team advising the Commissioner of Insurance in Massachusetts on the demutualization of the John Hancock Related Services Life Insurance Company, and has also served as an arbitrator Environmental Law in domestic and international arbitrations. Government Affairs Bob joined Stroock in 1994 following 15 years of distinguished service as Israel Attorney General of the State of New York. His career in public life has Litigation been marked by achievement, independence and integrity. He was elected to three terms in the New York State Assembly, three terms as Borough Education President of the Bronx and four terms as Attorney General of New York Honorary LL.D., Yeshiva University State. During his tenure as Attorney General, Mr. Abrams received numerous awards and honors and earned national prominence rarely Honorary LL.D., Hofstra University School achieved by a state-level official. He was widely heralded as a champion of Law and protector of consumer rights. He served as president of the National Honorary LL.D., Long Island University Association of Attorneys General and was selected by his colleagues to receive the coveted Wyman Award as Outstanding Attorney General in the Honorary LL.D., Pace University School of Nation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Law Powers of the New York State Attorney General [Forthcoming]
    LIEBMAN – THE COMMON LAW POWERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL [FORTHCOMING] THE COMMON LAW POWERS OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Bennett Liebman* INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 2 I. HISTORY OF THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ................................................................. 3 A. The Advent of Affirmative Lawsuits ................................. 3 B. Constitutional History of the Office of Attorney General ............................................................................... 6 C. Statutory History of the Office of Attorney General ....... 12 II. COMMON LAW POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ........... 23 A. Historic Common Law Powers of the Attorney General ............................................................................. 23 B. The Tweed RinG and the Attorney General ..................... 29 C. Common Law Prosecutorial Powers of the Attorney General ............................................................................. 32 D. Non-Criminal Common Law Powers .............................. 42 III. COMMON LAW POWERS IN OTHER STATES ............................. 48 IV. WHAT IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN NEW YORK ASSERTED ALL POSSIBLE COMMON LAW POWERS? ............... 51 A. Representation of the State Interest ................................. 52 1. RepresentinG the People Rather Than the Executive Client in LitiGation .................................... 52 2. ChallenGinG the Constitutionality of LeGislative
    [Show full text]
  • Robert B. Ward
    NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT Second Edition Robert B. Ward The Rockefeller Institute Press Albany, New York Cover photo by Michael F. Joyce, NYS Office of General Services Photographer Dustjacket Author Photo by Tim Raab/Northern Photo Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany, New York 12203-1003 © 2006 by the Rockefeller Institute Press All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America The Rockefeller Institute Press The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government 411 State Street Albany, New York 12203-1003 For Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data please contact the publisher ISBN: 1-930912-16-1 (softcover) 1-930912-15-3 (hardcover) To Deborah Hormell Ward With gratitude from her fortunate husband. TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ................................. xv Acknowledgments ...........................xvii Chapter One — A Broad Impact ....................1 An Increasingly Important Role .................4 Why This Book? .........................5 A Key Question: What Does State Government Do? ......6 Government Responds ......................8 Chapter Two — Reform: Is This the Time? ..............11 Rising Calls for Reform .....................13 Four Categories of Reform ...................16 The Budget Process .....................16 Legislative Process ......................20 The Role of Money in Lobbying ..............22 The Role of Money in Campaigns..............25 Redistricting .........................26 Policy Reforms ........................27 The State Constitution ......................28 The Political
    [Show full text]