Mayor DeBlasio’s grandmother sets the tone
Two tenants in a grimy four-story building on a desolate stretch of 10th Avenue in Manhattan scored a $25 million payout — after stalling part of the Hudson Yards redevelopment project by refusing to vacate.
The men lived together at 10th and West 34th Street, on a rundown corner that had been slated for redevelopment by real-estate giant Tishman Speyer.
The developer had bought the property and its surroundings for $438 million as part of a $20 billion redevelopment plan to create some 17 million square feet of new residential and commercial space west of 10th Avenue from 23rd to 42nd streets.
But the developer couldn’t proceed with its big plans until the pair moved, and they refused to budge. Tishman actually won in court, but it still caved.
The men’s lawyer, David Rozenholc, is infamous for tying up cases on appeal, so Tishman offered the men a multimillion-dollar settlement to avoid a prolonged battle, reported Crain’s New York Business.
Court papers identify the tenants as Gary Schwedock, 58, and Steven Kobrick, 36.
They now reside on the top floor of Riverbank West, a 44-story doorman building at 560 W. 43rd St. with concierge service, a pool and roof deck.
Rozenholc, 69, did not return a message seeking comment.
But he told Crain’s that Tishman was right to assume he would continue to fight.
“I would have taken the next step and come up with another argument.
[Even] if [the developer] wins every step of the way, it will take them five years,” he said.
The city’s filled with stories of wealthy tenants still occupying and paying 1960s rent for luxury apartments, and the protections afforded tenants in general allow for a lawyer like Rozenholc to acquire a rich practice as a (legal) blackmailer. It’s been a while since WWII, when these controls were imposed, but tenants’ groups have blocked their repeal ever since. And no wonder: you never know when someone will win the lottery.
For What It's Worth 
The Progressives that still read the hard copy of the NY Times and sip $100 bottles of Cab are very fond of their UWS Pre-war Classic 6’s and pay rent that equates to a daily level of 2 buck chuck. Key money in the NYC market is very common. Investors who traffic in multi family/apartment/residential in NYC are a unique lot and I have a lot of respect for their resilience.
As a humorous aside, for those looking for entertainment on a budget, a trip to the landlord/tenant court in Manhattan is a very unique and memorable experience. I am quite certain that the old saw that “possession is 9/10ths of the law” originated here.
I have a really good friend in the city who takes in a tidy income from her job but lives in a really pretty two bedroom UES rent controlled apartment. She pays so little I gag. She wasn’t even the person who “earned” the right to have the rent controlled space – it was held in the name of her former live-in boyfriend who has long since moved out yet S. was able to convince the landlord to put the lease in her name even though she’s not legally supposed to. S is a huge Democrat, strongly in the Hillary first woman president camp, yet when I question her on the morality of living in a rent controlled apartment while she can afford to send her daughter to college without any loans and travels quite often, she doesn’t have an answer. Drives me nuts about libs.
I too know people like that. They likely have 9 figure net worth, yet rent an UWS 4 bedroom for about a grand a month. Granted, it’s not the greatest building, but a couple thousand square feet of space more than makes up for the bland 60’s architecture and lack of a fancy lobby at a price that a struggling middle class family would be grateful to have.