DOCSLIB.ORG

4688 TENANTS of 79 LORIMER STREET ORDER Docket No. TR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4688 TENANTS of 79 LORIMER STREET ORDER Docket No. TR ORPER NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD Loft Board Order No.: 4688 TENANTS OF 79 LORIMER STREET Docket No. TR-1273 RE: 79 Lorimer Street Brooklyn, New York IMD No.: None ORDER The New York City Loft Board ("Loft Board") accepts in part and rejects in part the Report and Recommendation of Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. Gloade dated March 23, 2017 ("Report"). BACKGROUNp On November 7,2014, the New York City Department of Buildings ("DOB") issued a vacate order for 79 Lorimer Street, Brooklyn, New York ("Building"). That order remains in effect. On August 4, 2015, the following tenants (collectively "Applicants") filed an application seeking Article 7-C coverage for their respective units ("Units") and protected occupant status pursuant to § 281(5) of the Multiple Dwelling Law ("MDL"): Applicant Unit Aaron Scaturro, Toshio Masuda, Bryce Hackford and Travis McDemus Second floor Shad rack Lindo and Katherine Carothers 4B on the Fourth floor Arthur Purvis, Josh Steinbauer, and Peter Pearson Sixth floor The Loft Board transferred the application to the Office of Administrative Trial and Hearings ("OATH"), which assigned the matter to Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. Gloade for adjudication. On February 12, 2016, FJH Realty, Inc. ("Owner"), owner of the Building, filed an answer. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Applicants and Owner stipulated that the Units and the Building met most of the eligibility and other relevant facts. SpeCifically, • The Units are at least 400 sq. ft. in size and have an entrance that does not require passage through another residential unit; • The Units are not located in a basement or cellar; • Each unit contains at least one window that opens onto a street or a lawful yard or court; • The Building was formerly used for commercial or manufacturing purposes; • The Building lacked a certificate of occupancy pursuant to MDL § 301; • Applicants Scaturro, Purvis, and Lindo are the prime lessees ofthe second and sixth floor units and unit 4B, on the fourth floor, respectively; and • Applicant McDemus did not occupy the second floor unit prior to the effective date of the law. In Owner's Post Trial-Memorandum of Law, dated Decem ber 2, 2016, Owner further conceded that the Units were residentially occupied for twelve (12) consecutive months, between January 1, 2008 and December 31,2009 ("Window Period"), and that prime lessees Scaturro, Lindo and Purvis resided, primarily, in the Units; In the Report, Judge Gloade recommended that the Loft Board find: 1) the Building is an interim multiple dwelling ("IMD") pursuant to MDL § 281 (5) and the second and sixth floor units and unit 4B, on the fourth floor, are IMD units; 2) Aaron Scaturro, Toshio Masuda, Bryce Hackford, Shadrack Lindo, Katherine Carothers, Arthur Purvis, Josh Steinbauer, and Peter Pearson are all protected occupants of their respective units; and 3) Travis McDemus is not a protected occupant of the second floor unit. Based on the extensive testimonial and documentary evidence in the record, along with Owner's concession of residential occupancy during the Window Period, we accept Judge Gloade's finding that the Building is an IMD with one unit on the second and sixth floors and unit 4B on the fourth floor. The Loft Board further accepts the finding that Applicant McDemus is not a protected occupant, but rejects Judge Gloade's reasoning. We also reject the recommendation that the non-prime lessees: Masuda, Hackford, Carothers, Steinbauer, and Pearson are protected occupants. ANALYSIS As noted above, the parties stipulated to most of the eligibility and residency requirements and that Applicants Scaturro, Purvis, and Lindo are the only prime lessees for their respective units. The only issue before the Board is which applicants are entitled to Article 7 -C protection, namely, whether non­ prime lessees can be protected occupants when prime lessees occupy IMD units as their primary residences. Background The coverage of a unit and the protection of the occupants in that unit are two separate areas of the law governed by different sections of the Loft Law and the Loft Board's rules. In 2010, the New York State Legislature amended the Loft Law to add MDL § 281 (5) which established a new window period for coverage. The Legislature also added MDL § 282-a, a deadline for applications for units and buildings seeking Article 7-C coverage. The original deadline was March 11, 2014. Prior to the 2010 amendment, the Board's decisions on the rights of occupants to Article 7-C protection were tangential to coverage determinations of units. Essentially, when the Board found a unit covered under Article 7-C, it also found, usually summarily, that the residential occupants were entitled to Article 7-C protection. Decisions often contained little to no independent analysis of the applicable rule for protected occupant claims found in Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York ("29 RCNY") § 2- 09(b). See, Matter of Popa, Loft Board Order No. 1586 (Sep. 13, 1994), Matter of Lagmon, Loft Board Order No. 2473 (Feb. 1, 2000), and Matter of VanDerbeek, Loft Board Order No. 2717 (Mar. 27, 2002). In both Matter of VanDerbeek, and Matter of Lagmon, the Board considered the fact that the prime lessee and the other occupant seeking protection were life partners and ultimately a family, to determ ine protected occupancy. The use of fam ilial relationships to determ ine Article 7-C protection, was not based on any part of Article 7-C or the Loft Board's rules. To the contrary, the plain language of § 2-09 precludes awarding non-prime lessees, including family members, protected occupant status if the prime lessee is seeking protection and uses the unit as his or her primary residence. After the 2010 amendment, the Loft Board made changes in its administrative processes and in its quasi-judicial functions because the statutory deadline for coverage and registration applications did not apply to determinations for protected occupancy. To avoid restricting the rights of occupants seeking protection, the Loft Board staff administratively created a separate protected occupant claim by adding it to the General Application form, while the claim for coverage remained as a separate application. In addition, the Board began to include more detailed analyses of the protected occupancy issue in its decisions. The Board adopted a more disciplined approach, adhering to the plain language of 29 RCNY § 2-09(b). This change in the Board's approach was the catalyst for a divide between interpretations of § 2-09(b) by the Loft Board and OATH. 2 The Loft Board Position MDL § 286(2) provides that "residential occupants qualified for protection ... shall be entitled to continued occupancy provided that the unit is their primary residence ... " The Loft Board's interpretation of § 2-09, is consistent with the language of the law and is within the Loft Board's powers under Article 7- C. When the Loft Board makes determinations of protected occupancy, it considers all provisions of 29 RCNY § 2-09(b). See, Matter of Migno/a, Loft Board Order No. 4509 (Apr. 21,2016). Section 2- 09{b)(1) states, "Except as otherwise provided herein, the occupant qualified for protection under Article 7-C is the residential occupant in possession of a residential unit covered as part of an IMD" [emphasis added]. Based on this language, before the Board can make a determination under § 2-09(b}(1), the Board must first consider the rule as a whole, including the provisions in (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4). Furthermore, since the 2010 amendment, the Board has consistently applied § 2-09 when distinguishing the analysis for coverage from the analysis for protected occupancy. The Board has issued multiple congruent determinations where it applied a primary residence analysis for a prime lessee seeking protected occupant status, establishing primary residency as a prerequisite for protected occupancy. See, MatterofPak, Loft Board Order No. 4334 (Nov. 20, 2014), Matter of Gallo, Loft Board Order No. 4349 (Jan. 15, 2015), Matter of Schuss, Loft Board Order No. 4393 (May 21, 2015), Matter of Marriner-Smith, Loft Board Order No. 4426 (Sept. 17, 2015) and Matter of Mignola, Loft Board Order No. 4509 (Apr. 21, 2016). Pursuant to 29 RCNY § 2-09{b){4), the prime lessee is deemed the residential occupant entitled to protection under Article 7-C if the prime lessee can prove that the residential unit covered as part of an IMD is his or her primary residence. Thus, where there is a prime lessee using the unit as a primary residence, that prime lessee is the protected occupant to the exclusion of all other occupants in the same unit. See, Various Tenants of 357 Bowery, Loft Board Order No. 4350 (Jan. 15, 2015). Consequently, when a prime lessee seeks Article 7-C protection, § 2-09(b) requires a protected occupant determination for the prime lessee first, before determining whether a non-prime lessee is the protected occupant. The OATH Position In general, Judge Gloade, in representing the OATH position, holds that the Loft Board's current interpretation of § 2-09 restricts the scope of protection and runs afoul to the remedial purpose of the Loft Law. Furthermore, although Judge Gloade concedes primary residence is not at issue in this case, she questions whether primary residence analyses are required for protected occupant claims, stating that, "[ ... ] The Board's interpretation of section 2-09(b)(4) imposes the more stringent requirement of proving primary residence on prime lessees than on tenants who have never had leases, and is inconsistent with the Loft Law, case law, and the Board's own rules." See, Report at 8. Judge Gloade also claims that the Loft Board's recent decisions are contrary to holdings in prior cases where the Loft Board applied § 2- 09{b)(4) only when a prime lessee who was out of possession sought to recover possession of that unit from a current occupant.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • September 1, 2015 Hon. Carl Weisbrod Director Department Of
    CITY OF NEW YORK MARGARET S. CHIN GALE A. BREWER COUNCIL MEMBER, DISTRICT 1 MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL 1 CENTRE STREET, 19TH FLOOR 250 BROADWAY, SUITE 1882 NEW YORK, NY 10007 NEW YORK, NY 10007 September 1, 2015 Hon. Carl Weisbrod Director Department of City Planning 22 Reade Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10007 Dear Director Weisbrod: We write this letter to highlight a number of concerns we have that have been reinforced by Manhattan Community Board 2 and affected constituents on the existing zoning framework created in 1971 in the SoHo and NoHo neighborhoods. A continuing flood of special permits and variances being processed by the Department of City Planning (DCP) and the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), respectively, have raised serious questions about our planning strategy for this neighborhood. These actions add-up to a de facto rezoning but with little planning coherence and limited public benefit. We believe it is time to revisit the zoning to create a framework which works for the present and looks forward. This framework, among other goals, should strengthen the varied, small-scale retail character, promote a diversity of uses and a diverse employment base, and encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing. As you know, the current M1-5A/M1-5B framework embodied in the New York City Zoning Resolution Section 42-14, inclusive, was created in 1971 in order to protect the manufacturing and industrial sector. In 1982, the New York City Loft Board was established to provide a legal framework for artists to legally reside in these buildings as live-work spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • From Museums to Film Studios, the Creative Sector Is One of New York City’S Most Important Economic Assets
    CREATIVE NEW YORK From museums to film studios, the creative sector is one of New York City’s most important economic assets. But the city’s working artists, nonprofit arts groups and for-profit creative firms face a growing number of challenges. June 2015 www.nycfuture.org CREATIVE NEW YORK Written by Adam Forman and edited by David Giles, Jon- CONTENTS athan Bowles and Gail Robinson. Additional research support from from Xiaomeng Li, Travis Palladino, Nicho- las Schafran, Ryan MacLeod, Chirag Bhatt, Amanda INTRODUCTION 3 Gold and Martin Yim. Cover photo by Ari Moore. Cover design by Amy ParKer. Interior design by Ahmad Dowla. A DECADE OF CHANGE 17 Neighborhood changes, rising rents and technology spark This report was made possible by generous support anxiety and excitement from New York Community Trust, Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, Laurie M. Tisch Illumination Fund, Rock- SOURCES OF STRENGTH 27 efeller Brothers Fund and Edelman. Talent, money and media make New York a global creative capital CENTER FOR AN URBAN FUTURE CREATIVE VOICES FROM AROUND THE WORLD 33 120 Wall St., Fl. 20 New YorK, NY 10005 Immigrants enrich New York’s creative sector www.nycfuture.org THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS 36 Center for an Urban Future is a results-oriented New Exorbitant rents, a shortage of space and high costs York City-based think tank that shines a light on the most critical challenges and opportunities facing New ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES 36 YorK, with a focus on expanding economic opportunity, New York City’s chief barriers to variety and diversity creating jobs and improving the lives of New York’s most vulnerable residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Matter of 400 South 2 Street Tenants
    Matter of 400 South 2nd Street Tenants OATH Index No. 1018/16 (Sept. 7, 2018), adopted in part, rejected in part, Loft Bd. Order No. 4860 (Mar. 21, 2019), reconsideration denied, Loft Bd. Order No. 4904 (Oct. 17, 2019) & Loft Bd. Order No. 4974 (May 21, 2020), appended [Loft Bd. Dkt. No. TR-1269; 394-400 South 2nd Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.] Loft tenants sought coverage and protected occupancy of Brooklyn building. Testimony and documentation established residential occupancy and coverage of eight of ten units and protected occupancy for the current occupants of the covered units. The evidence did not support a finding that the remaining two units are entitled to coverage or the current occupants entitled to protected occupancy. Loft Board adopts all of ALJ’s findings except it disagrees that when assessing primary residency, one should look to the applicant’s status at the time the application was filed. Instead, the Board ruled that the entire administrative record must be considered when assessing primary residency. ______________________________________________________ NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS In the Matter of 400 SOUTH 2ND STREET TENANTS, Petitioners ______________________________________________________ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SUSAN J. POGODA, Administrative Law Judge Petitioners Natalie South, Bryan Andrew Small, Jared Cohen, Kirsten Russell, Katalin Junek, John Marc Peckham, Scott Matthew, C. Anderson Miller, Koppel Verma, Mentor and Julie Noci, Ayca Koseogullari and Adam Baer filed coverage and protected occupancy applications on July 6 and 10, 2015, and August 14, 2016, pursuant to Article 7-C, section 281 of the Multiple Dwelling Law (“Loft Law” or “Article 7C of the MDL” or “MDL”) and title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York (“RCNY” or “Loft Board Rules”) ( ALJ Exs.
    [Show full text]
  • Lofts Narrative
    Joseph Pell Lombardi, Architect LOFTS Pioneering in the Urban Wilderness -- Title of a 1977 book by James Stratton INTRODUCTION “He adored New York City. He idolized it all out of proportion. Uh, no, make it he, he, romanticized it all out of proportion”. --The movie Manhattan by Woody Allen I have always sought out the older, forsaken buildings of New York City. In the 1940s and 1950s, as a child, I observed the then deteriorating residential areas of Harlem. In the 1960s, as a young architect, preservationist and investor, I became immersed in restoring multi-tenant rooming houses back to one family townhouses in the Upper West Side and the Kips Bay/Murray Hill areas of Manhattan. At the beginning of the 1970s, as I began to discover the fading magnifi cent commercial buildings of lower Manhattan, my focus shifted to converting warehouse and commercial buildings to residential use. At that time, lower Manhattan had hundreds of spectacular buildings which were physically and economically distressed. Like the townhouses of the 1960s, exploring lower Manhattan was the discovery of treasures; behind the beautiful, but dusty and poorly maintained, facades of lower Manhattan were magnifi cent lobbies, high ceilinged spaces with large windows, top fl oors with multiple skylights and, often, fully detailed interiors -- it was a preservation architect’s dream. At fi rst there was little competition in the residential conversion fi eld from other architects because it was an off -beat specialty consisting less of conventional architecture and more about preservation, retrofi tting, zoning obstacles and building code issues. It was also a waiting opportunity.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenants' Rights Guide
    TENANTS’ RIGHTS GUIDE Office of the New York State Attorney General A Note from the Office of the New York State Attorney General The contract between a tenant and landlord, whether it is based on a written lease or a handshake, is one of the most common and important deals that are made across our state. It defines how renters will enjoy their homes, how owners will maintain their property, it can affect a neighborhood’s stability. That’s why it’s important that everyone understands their rights and responsibilities under the law. In New York State, there are several different laws governing this relationship, and they can be different depending upon the county or town you live in. This booklet explains many of the laws tenants need to know and provides resources for where you can find more information about landlord and tenant issues. The Office of the New York State Attorney General protects the rights of all New Yorkers. Whether the issue involves civil rights or consumer affairs, healthcare or investment fraud — we may be able to help. To learn more about how we can help, contact us at: www.ag.ny.gov | 800-771-7755 Table Of Contents Introduction 1 Types Of Housing 1 Leases 3 Rent 6 Lease Succession Or Termination 10 Habitability And Repairs 17 Safety 20 Utility Services 23 Tenants’ Personal Protections 24 Finding An Apartment 28 Resources 29 INTRODUCTION The rights of residential tenants in New York State are protected by a variety of federal, state and local laws. In addition, areas of the State subject to rent stabilization, rent control or other rent regulation may have special rules that apply to certain dwellings.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 MINUTES of PUBLIC MEETING New York City Loft
    MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING New York City Loft Board Public Meeting Held at 22 Reade Street, Main Floor, Spector Hall September 5, 2019 The meeting began at 10:50 AM Attendees: Elliott Barowitz, Public Member; Richard Roche, Fire Department’s ex officio; Robinson Hernandez, Manufacturers’ Representative; Charles DeLaney, Tenants’ Representative; Julie Torres- Moskovitz, Public Member; Renaldo Hylton, Chairperson Designee; and Helaine Balsam, Loft Board, Executive Director. INTRODUCTION: Chairperson Hylton welcomed those present to the September 5, 2019, public meeting of the New York City Loft Board. He then briefly summarized Section 282 of the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law, which establishes the New York City Loft Board; and described the general operation of the Board as consistent with Article 7-C of the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Hylton: Last month, we had agreed to devote a fifteen-minute period at this meeting to discuss the new Loft Board forms. So I’d like to open the floor up to the Board members for that maximum amount of time to offer any comments or feedback they might have. Mr. DeLaney: Mr. Chairman, before we do that, I’d like to ask a couple of questions, if I might, on general topics. First and foremost, over the past couple of months, I’ve learned of several buildings where gas service has been interrupted. I believe a number of them have been referred to the Loft Board. This seems to be a function, in some cases, of service being interrupted due to some concern, real or imagined. In other instances, it seems there are owners who are interested in converting from electric to gas.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to the Rent Stabilized Housing Stock in NYC in 2019
    Changes to the Rent Stabilized Housing Stock in NYC in 2019 May 27, 2020 New York City Rent Guidelines Board York New Board Members Chair: David Reiss Public Members: Christina DeRose ● Christian Gonzalez-Rivera Cecilia Joza ● Alex Schwartz Owner Members: Patti Stone ● Scott Walsh Tenant Members: Sheila Garcia ● Leah Goodridge Staff Members Executive Director: Andrew McLaughlin Research Director: Brian Hoberman Deputy Research Director: Danielle Burger Office Manager: Charmaine Superville New York City Rent Guidelines Board 1 Centre Street, Suite 2210, New York, NY 10007 l 212-669-7480 l nyc.gov/rgb New York City Rent Guidelines Board Changes to the Rent Stabilized Housing Stock in NYC in 2019 04 Overview What’s New Additions to the R The study finds a net estimated loss of 2,444 rent 04 Rent Stabilized stabilized units in 2019. Housing Stock R Since 1994, New York City’s rent stabilized housing stock has seen an approximate net loss of 145,312 units. Subtractions to 06 the Rent Stabilized R Additions to the stabilized housing stock in 2019 declined Housing Stock 26% from the prior year. R Subtractions from the stabilized housing stock in 2019 09 Summary rose 51% over the prior year. R Most of the additions to the rent stabilized stock in 2019 12 Appendices were due to the 421-a tax incentive program, accounting for 65% of the additions. R The median rent of initially registered rent stabilized apartments in 2019 was $4,798, a 60% increase from the prior year. R High-Rent Vacancy Deregulation made up the largest category of subtractions from the stabilized stock, accounting for 70% of the units removed in 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Gentrification Saved New York
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research John Jay College of Criminal Justice 2017 The Preservation Moment: Gentrification Saved New York Jeffrey A. Kroessler CUNY John Jay College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/163 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] The Preservation Moment: Gentrification Saved New York! Jeffrey A. Kroessler Lloyd Sealy Library John Jay College of Criminal Justice In virtually any American city one can find evidence of how historic preservation has contributed to the character of the place and enhanced the quality of life. Preservationists point to their success in turning neighborhoods around, even reinventing urban life. The case of New York City is the story of the recovery of a troubled city. New York’s example has inspired and guided many other cities since, though the city is in many ways a unique case. By 1960, America’s older cities were in decline. Urban life, the defining experience of the first half of the Twentieth Century, was yielding to suburbanization. Older industrial cities reached their highest population in 1950, and for most of them the decline continued into the 21st century. This was true of Buffalo and Rochester, Cleveland and Cincinnati, Detroit, Philadelphia and St. Louis. In each instance the surrounding metropolitan region grew, but the urban core decayed. Grand urban monuments – train stations, department stores, office buildings, theaters, factories, even churches – were demolished or remained empty for decades.1 The loss of solid, beautiful structures was stunning; the sheer waste was shameful, but absent economic viability, not surprising.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 MINUTES of PUBLIC MEETING New York City Loft
    MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING New York City Loft Board Public Meeting Held at 22 Reade Street, Main Floor, Spector Hall December 5, 2019 DRAFT The meeting began at: 10:00 AM Attendees: Elliott Barowtiz, Public Member; Richard Roche, Fire Department’s ex officio; Charles DeLaney, Tenants’ Representative; Julie Torres-Moskovitz, Public Member; Renaldo Hylton, Chairperson Designee; and Helaine Balsam, Loft Board, Executive Director. INTRODUCTION: Chairperson Hylton welcomed those present to the December 5, 2019, public meeting of the New York City Loft Board. He then briefly summarized Section 282 of the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law, which establishes the New York City Loft Board; and described the general operation of the Board as consistent with Article 7-C of the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law. __________________________________________________________________________________________ THE CASES: Master Calendar Mr. Hylton: As there are no meeting minutes to approve, we turn our attention to the Master Calendar Cases. All of the Proposed Orders are to owners who have failed to renew their registrations. There are twenty-four cases on this list, but some will be removed, as they’ve since been settled, and one of them, number 9, is being tabled. They are voted on as a group. The cases are: Applicant(s) Address Docket No. 1 ROYAL EQUITIES OPERATING LLC 151-155 West 25th Street, Manhattan FO-0807 2 191 CHRYSTIE, LLC 191-193 Chrystie Street, Manhattan FO-0808 3 CAMILLA SHAH, PRESIDENT OF CONDO ASSOC. 354 Bowery, Manhattan FO-0816 4 HAIMIL REALTY CORP. 209 East 2nd Street, Manhattan FO-0819 5 388 BROADWAY OWNERS, LLC 388 Broadway, Manhattan FO-0820 6 BRIDGE ASSOCIATES OF SOHO, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Youth Corps Case Studies: the New York City Volunteer Corps. Interim Report
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 283 033 CE 047 506 AUTHOR Branch, Alvia Y.; Freedman, Marc TITLE Youth Corps Case Studies: The New York City Volunteer Corps. Interim Report. INSTITUTION Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA. PUB DATE Oct 86 NOTE 91p.; For related documents, see CE 047 498 and CE 047 502-508. AVAILABLE FROM Public/Private Ventures, 399 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; Conservation (Environment); *Conservation Education; Demonstration Programs; Human Services; Minority Groups; *Outcomes of Education; Postsecondary Education; Program Costs; *Program Effectiveness; Student Characteristics; Urban Areas; Urban Education; Volunteers; *Youth Employment; *Youth Programs IDENTIFIERS *New York (New York); *Youth Conservation Corps ABSTRACT The New York City Volunteer Corps (CVC), which began operation in 1984, is the nation's largest urban youth service corps. Though it has the same dual goals as many youth corps--community service and youth development--the CVC is distinctive among youth corps in many respects. The CVC had pioneered the large-scale use of corpsmembers in delivering human services to homeless, elderly, disabled, and other dependent populations. The corps also enables corpsmembers to pursue mainstream academic credentials during their service and offers them either $2,500 in cash or a $5,000 scholarship after a year of service. Other unique aspects of the CVC include its emphasis on service to the city rather than on employment and training, its definition of corpsmembers as volunteers who receive stipends, its nonresidential proaram design, and the city's commitment to provide virtually all the corps' financial support.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment to § 2-08 to Conform the Loft Board's Rules Regarding IMD
    Amendment to § 2-08 to conform the Loft Board’s rules regarding IMD qualifying criteria for coverage and registration, to the amendments made to the MDL, effective as of June 21, 2010. NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE NEW YORK CITY LOFT BOARD by Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law and Mayor’s Executive Order No. 129, dated May 22, 2009, and pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of Section 1043 of the New York City Charter that, the New York City Loft Board intends to amend section 2-08 of Title 29 of the Rules of the City of New York, to conform the Loft Board’s rules to the amendments made to Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law, effective as of June 21, 2010. Written comments regarding this proposed rule may be sent to the New York City Loft Board, 100 Gold Street, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10038 on or before January 14, 2011. A public hearing will be held on January 20, 2011 at 22 Reade Street, First Floor, New York, NY, commencing at 2:00 p.m. Persons seeking to testify are requested to notify the Loft Board at the foregoing address or by telephone at (212) 566-5663. Persons who require a sign language interpreter and persons who require a reasonable accommodation for a disability at the hearing are asked to notify the Loft Board by January 14, 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing NYC: Rents, Markets and Trends 2019 Provide the Foundation for the Board’S Deliberations and Our Decisions This Year
    Housing NYC Rents, Markets City Rent Guidelines Board York New Board Members & Trends Chair: David Reiss Public Members: Cecilia Joza • Alex Schwartz 2019 German Tejeda • May Yu Owner Members: Patti Stone • Scott Walsh Tenant Members: Sheila Garcia • Leah Goodridge Staff Members Executive Director: Andrew McLaughlin Research Director: Brian Hoberman Deputy Research Director: Danielle Burger Office Manager: Charmaine Superville Table of Contents Table of Contents Chair’s Acknowledgments ...............................7 Net Operating Income................................33 Exec Director’s Acknowledgments ............9 Operating Cost Ratios .................................33 Net Operating Income After Inflation.........................................................35 INCOME AND EXPENSE Longitudinal Study Rents and Income.........................................37 Price Index of Operating Costs Operating Costs.............................................38 What’s New.............................................................13 RPIE Expenses and the PIOC.....................38 Introduction...........................................................14 Operating Cost Ratios .................................39 Overview .................................................................14 Net Operating Income................................39 Price Index Components ...................................15 Summary.................................................................40 Taxes ..................................................................15
    [Show full text]