BLINK FITNESS EVICTION

Greystone lies that may shut Blink Fitness down.
First Greystone commits forgery ... then Greystone lies to the Buildings Department ... then Greystone lies to Blink. Who gets the haircut?
Card image cap

Pigs get fat... 

Hogs get slaughtered ...

Or so the saying goes.  Greystone looks more hoggish by the day.

One would think that over promising in a commercial lease situation would lead to problems, even lawsuits.

This one looks like a doozie.

Greystone, despite their best attempts to ignore their own malfeasance in the soon to be invalidated purchase of the Brooklyn Lyceum, keeps creating their own problems.

For example.... take a look at Blink Fitness.  They signed on for 15,000 +/- square feet of space in the Brooklyn Lyceum.   Little did they know that, in order to build the adjacent building taller, Greystone had to tell the NYC Buildings Department that the uses in the Brooklyn Lyceum had to be a community facility.

And, guess what is not a community facility according to the NYC Buildings Department, commercial chain gyms.

In addition, Greystone never bothered to get a anew certificate of occupancy (CofO), a required process when significant changes have been made (altering exits adding or removing floors, excavation), and is instead attempting to have Blink Fitness occupy a brand new floor that does not even exist in the Certificate of occupancy they are using from 1943.

Wow.  What will Stephen Rosenberg of  Greystone do?  Not do commercial in the base of a brand new residential building and give up some of that residential?

More likely they take the bullet now on the inevitable Blink lawsuit and suffer through whatever breakup will entail be it settlements or lawsuits.

Card image cap

Herrick and Feinsten Liars!

Rather than get up to speed, Herrick and Feinstein found itself starting a coverup  on day 1.

The important thing to understand is that Greystone, or more specifically, Jeffrey Simpson, an employee of Greystone charged with implementing a global real estate development scheme, typifies the peter principle that states how one rises to the level of ones incompetence.  In other words you get promoted and promoted and promoted until you reach a job you can't actually handle.

Jeffrey Simpson has reached such a point.

When charged with closing the deal of getting title to a property his masters (Greystone) had bid on, rather than get it done early Jeffrey managed to allow it to take until the 89th day of a 90 day window.

This left little room for error as not closing by the end of the 90th day meant that Greystone would lose the deposit and the property would go up for auction again.  This time the debt would be decreased by the amount of the prior down payment.

Such errors have occurred from before the purported closing date to the present at an alarming rate leaving Herrick and Feinstein with a steaming pile to clean up thet the usual Greystone legal henchmen, Greenberg Traurig, chose not to handle.

It tells you a lot when something is so screwed up and wrong that even Greenberg Traurig begs off.

This is what Herrick and Feinstein signed on for.... cleaning up after fraud, forgery and filing false instruments.

How to start? Well, Herrick and Feinstein throws a top-notch prevaricator at it, Avery S. Mehlman.


Card image cap

Fire in the Hole!

How not to start a lawsuit....

Lawsuits invoke the power of the court.  To invoke that power there must be a controvery presented to the court.

That can be accomplished in several ways.

  1. The harmed party (the "Plaintiff") can file a complaint swearing to some minimal set of facts to get the ball rolling.  This swearing to something "under penalty of perjury" is THE TOUCHSTONE of the American jurisprudence system.  If the Plaintiff won't put skin in the game, no controversy exists and the power of the court is not invoked.
  2. The harmed party can hire an attorney to describe facts and create and file the complaint.  The "Plaintiff", however, must swear to both having read the complaint as well as to the veracity of the facts alleged in the complaint.
  3. The attorney for the "Plaintiff" can swear to the facts for the "Plaintiff" if attorney swears that the client is not in the county in which the attorney has its offices.

If it is not one of those three, or if all the required parts are not in place for one of the three, there is no dispute properly before the court and the court never obtains jurisdiction (the right to rule in a controversy).

What we have is a bastardization of the second one by Herrick and Feinstein partner  Avery S. Mehlman in conjunction with Jeffrey Simpson of Greystone.

Card image cap

Time travel or perjury?

As noted in the prior tab, a Plaintiff can have an attorney write up the complaint, read it and then sign an affidavit swearing under penalty of perjury that the Plaintiff has both read the complaint and he he agrees (and by proxy swears to) the facts alleged in the complaint.

This is a very important thing as, properly done, it invokes the power of the court.

Improperly done it must be slapped back to the stone age lest it become common practice to not invoke the power of the court properly.

Here, as can be seen in the graphic on the left portion of two documents.

The first piece is the end of the complaint drafted and electronically signed by the attorney for the Plaintiff, Avery S. Mehlman of Herrick and Feinstein.  Note that it is dated July 31, 2017.

Second is the words from the backing affidavit that complete the invocation of the power of the court, "under penalty of perjury".

What is under penalty of perjury?  That the President of the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Simpson" has read and swears to the accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint drafted by his attorney, Avery S. Mehlman.

Note the third part of the graphic at the left. The affidavit of Jeffrey Simpson is dated July 28, 2017.

What makes this interesting as well as perjury is that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to have read something onn July 28, 2017 that did not exist until July 31, 2017.

It appears, for this not to be perjury, that Jeffrey Simpson took a TIME MACHINE three days into the future, read a document, and returned to the present to swear that he had already read the document initiating the lawsuit in the future.  If that makes your head hurt it is because it is neither possible as we currently understand physics nor is it authorized by an act of the New York State Legislature.

In short, both Avery S. Mehlman of Herrick and Feinstein and Jeffrey Simpson should be doing a stint upstate.
Card image cap

Avery S. Melman Lie

If we go further down the rabbit hole of the temporally impossible complaint we can take a look at some factual allegations.  The first that springs to mind is the allegation that the deed received by an an entity is the deed filed with the city register giving that entity sole standing as the owner of the property.

Avery S. Mehlman alleges as much stating:

"A refereeā€™s deed, dated January 20, 2015, was executed and delivered to Greystone, and duly recorded on February 2, 2015, with the New York City Department of Finance, Office of the City Register at CRFN 2015000035920. "

Well, let's take a look at the deed(s) in question.The top one is from the one filed by the referee in state court , filed in federal court by by the people who foreclosed by Glenn P. Warmuth and also filed in federal court by a prosecution United States Attorney William Curtin.

The bottom one is from the "deed" filed by Jeffrey Simpson as head of another LLC other than the Plaintiff.

Note that the date is different on the one given to Jeffrey Simpson than the one filed by Jeffrey Simpson.

Clearly, they are not the same document.


Card image cap

Avery S. Mehlman an idiot?

Why would Avery S. Mehlman of Herrick and Feinstein not check the facts? Here are some plausible options.
  1. RUBE: Jeffrey Simpson of Greystone is a lying scoundrel.  Maybe Jeffrey Simpson knew he had forged the deed and has hoped his hired gun would not look too deep.
  2. STUPID: Avery S. Mehlman is too stupid to check the facts to protect his client from possible perjury both in the accuracy of the facts and the date of the verification.
  3. LAZY: Avery S. Mehlman is too lazy to check the work of low level associates ate Herrick and Feinstein (Shivanii Poddar and Rebecca Newman).
  4. CORRUPT: Avery S. Mehlman is a corrupt attorney.  It would seem that if the basis of the lawsuit fabricated and formulated by Avery S. Mehlman was the result of emails from the defendant to various entities that the deed from the referee was impossibly dated that the attorney who puts his name to the paper would check to see if it was impossibly dated and to check all aspects of the date on the deed presented to the attorney by his client.  To do otherwise is both negligence, misrepresentation and, essentially, the sign of a corrupt attorney.

We vote for 4 .. he is a corrupt stain on the legal profession.  can't even begin to imagine the slimy things he may have done as a prosecutor in Kings County under Hines.
Card image cap

Mehlman: Zero to PERJURY in 30 seconds ...

In a hearing on October 17, 2017 about whether Blink Fitness inappropriately (through lying lawyer Avery S. Mehlman) included things that have nothing to do with whether the deed (which is forged by Jeffrey Simpson) upon which the Blink lease of the Brooklyn Lyceum is premised is MORE valid than another deed, Avery S. Mehlman couldn't help himself and committed at least two perjuries (lying about timeframes and numbers of actions) in the very beginning of his diatribe of falsehoods to sway the judge.  Let's just say that Avery S. Mehlman is both truth and math challenged.

  The judge made some decisions that we disagree with but even the judge could not allow into a complaint any statements made by us in public forums about public officials.

We are not sure what we will do in response to the decision but it was quite interesting that the judge actually got up and left the room when we attempted to address these perjuries.

Card image cap

Enemy of my enemy is ...

Jean Miele?
Card image cap

Landmarks -1, Blink - 0

Greystone lied a lot to landmarks about signage on the Individual NYC Landmark Public Bath #7 / Brooklyn Lyceum

Greystone said that all signage would be inside and be visible through the widows.

Well, that never happened at all. In the two spaces with the vertical ovals there were banners for more than 6 months.  Nimrods even lagged / drilled into the unique glazed brick instead of spending 5 minutes to adjust it or hang the banners via drilling into commonplace mortar.

In addition they have placed three signs on the building, center of the front, tiny one lower right of front and one on President Street side.

Landmarks issued a violation for the signs and, 6 months later, the banners came down but not the signs.

Will NYC Landmarks Commision allow itself to be ignored by big developers such as Greystone who laugh at the NYC Landmarks rules with seeming impunity?

Card image cap

Blink sinking?

Blink Fitness, fresh off losing a NYC Landmarks battle, attempts to bolster registration numbers.

Without the advertising that had illegally adorned the Brooklyn Lyceum (aka Park Slope Blink), Blink Fitness went to local billboard action.

The billboard is across the street from the Brooklyn Lyceum (Brooklynlyceum.com / Blink Park Slope).

That billboard is probably around $3000 per month.

That's a lot of cheese (approximately 200 memberships per month).

Broadway shows spend about 7% of their gross on advertising.  Using that as a baseline, Blink needs 3,000 members at the Brooklyn Lyceum to hit their target.

Based on the gowanusclub.com  member reports, that ain't happening.

The only other alternative is that Greystone is essentially giving it away.

But Greystone claims to have spent millions on the renovation that got less usable square feet with three floors than there was with two floors.

Greystone is so inept they filed a lawsuit claiming that Blink was a commercial tenant when commercial tenants aren't allowed based on Greystone getting more floor area for hosting a community facility, which Blink is not, which got them an inspection by the NYC Buildings Department which flushed out that they are riding (illegally)  the 1943 Certificate of Occupancy that necessarily needed replacement with adding floors, removing exits and adding exits.

What a tangled web, Indeed!

They are risking a forced Blink closure because they haven't got a Certificate of Occupancy showing the removal or floors and exist and the addition of floors and exits.  Matter of fact, gowanusclub.com member reports indicate that there is no Certificate of Occupancy on display.  This would imply that Blink is well aware of the deficiencies.

Daniel Goldner, the engineer / architect of record(http://www.goldnerarchitects.com/), seems to have signed off on misleading the NYC Buildings Department about the work that was done on the Brooklyn Lyceum.

Add that to Goldner's filing false instruments with regards to the adjacent development (submitting several photocopies of Jeffrey SImpson's signature when an original was required) and you can see that Greystone, Daniel Goldner Architects ans well as the realtors ( Alex Beard, Brandon Berger and Eddie Mamiye of http://www.rkf.com/)  may have a lot to answer to Blink for, unless Blink's Bill Miller was in on it from the start.

And, as an unallowed commercial entity, Greystone may have to choose between Starbucks and Blink.

Get the popcorn.  It's gonna get bumpy chuck! (Cast Away reference).

Card image cap

Blink to Public : Drop Dead

When faced with opening the Park Slope Blink Fitness (brooklynlyceum.com) a bit later or protecting the safety of the public, Daniel Goldner, Greystone and Blink Fitness chose the almighty buck over your safety.

How so?

The NYC Buildings Department is a veeery busy place.  So busy, in fact, that they instituted a procedure years ago by which the architect/engineer of record can self-certify many things.

They can self-certify things such as changing partition walls or work that does not demand/require a new Certificate of Occupancy (the document that shows the core safety features requires by the NYC Building code are met).

Things that REQUIRE a new Certificate of Occupancy (CofO) include removing exits or floors and installing new exits or floors.

Daniel Goldner, in business since 1980, surely knows this.

How is it that he can self-certify to the NYC Buildings Department that the work that removed a floor, removed a mezzanine through which all exits went, removed a balcony, excavated a pool, put in structural columns, put in a new floor, removed two exits, added two more exits and placed in a third exit that empties out onto a double step endangering all who exit  through that emergency exit?

Well, someone had an inkling that something untoward had occurred.  

Blink Fitness promised an August 1, 2017 opening when the facility was in no shape to open with the substantive changes Blink had put in place.  In fact, it was opened in a state dangerous to the public and only opened because Daniel Goldner, Greystone and maybe even Blink either actively colluded to endanger the public or turned a blind eye to the situation at hand.

Probably active as the attorney for Greystone (Avery S. Mehlman (partner for Herrick and Feinstein)) filed a lawsuit on July 31, 2017 (514769/2017) to stifle the dissemination of information about all that surrounded the illegal acquisition and development of the Brooklyn Lyceum. 

Someone, immediately after that lawsuit was filed and also immediately after Blink Fitness opened in the mid-renovation Brooklyn Lyceum, complained to the NYC Buildings Department.

A lawsuit alleging that the Lyceum is leased to a commercial tenant filed on July 31, 2017, Blink FItness opens in Brooklyn Lyceum on August 1, 2017 and the NYC Buildings Department inspects and finds that the building is being illegally occupied by Blink fitness on two counts. 

The first count is that there is no Waiver by the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals under the name of the deed-holder, Eric Richmond (me folks).  

The second count is occupancy counter to the 1943 certificate of occupancy.

There was a hearing.   Before the hearing, Greystone, fearing repercussions on the property next door, changed (illegally, of course) the applicant of record from Dan Goldner to Valentino Pompeo.

At the hearing, Greystone sent in someone to be a witness, Cian Hamill.  At that hearing, the attorney for the NYC Buildings Department made it very clear that ANY occupancy above the first floor was illegal under the only extant CofO, the one from 1943.

What the NYC Buildings Department attorney did not know, because it had been obfuscated by Daniel Goldner, was that there never was a first floor, just a cellar, a mezzanine and a second floor, a floor that could not be occupied under the existing CofO.

So, how is it that Daniel Goldner was unaware of these facts?  Not bloody likely.  Thus, the immediate replacement of the applicant of record with the Buildings Department to cover Goldner's crimes.  Goldner is a fraudster playing fast and loose with the safety of Blink customers.

Let's imagine that Daniel Goldner is not a criminal and, maybe, is just flat out incompetent.

Even if he is just an incompetent, after getting the violation, one would think immediate corrective action would be to file to get a replacement CofO that encompassed the work done to the building under the supervision of Daniel Goldner.

Well, getting a new architect (Applicant of Record) isn't quite so honorable.  It might even be perceived as an attempt to hide one's own malfeasance.

Well, when his license was on the line, Daniel Goldner was replaced by Valentino Pompeo (get rid of that lorem ipsum in your website, please) in a filing that has its own problems (how on earth did the Building's Department sign off on an undated by either the new applicant of record or the purported owner document)?  It would seem the failure to date that document is an attempt to avoid filing false instrument charges.  One would also wonder what kind of review documents actually get at the NYC Buildings Department.

Let's just say the fraud and misrepresentation at the NYC Buildings Department by Jeffrey Simpson of Greystone is running on overdrive.

Card image cap

Collusion: Undated Greystone Applications


First Greystone and Blink collude to illegally occupy a floor that has been illegal for 70 years (Certificate of Occupancy (CofO) from 1943 says no occupancy above the first floor).   In addition they rip out a mezzanine, rip out a balcony, get rid of an exit, add two more exits, get rid of stairwells, add stairwells, add an elevator, excavate out a pool and even split the Brooklyn Lyceum performance area into two floors.

Quite honestly, to do that and have an architect sign off on that much structural and new floor installation without getting a new CofO prior to tenant occupancy is negligence and fraud all in one by Daniel Goldner, the architect.

And, once Blink opened they were inspected and cited with occupancy in violation of the CofO for the work that appears to be self-certified, at best.  At worst, wholesale fraud by Goldner / Greystone / Blink..

Having committed fraud and subjected the public to undue risks in the search for corporate profits over public safety, the right thing would have been to cease occupancy even before the hearing with the NYC Buildings Department.

Instead, Daniel Goldner ran away and Greystone hired another architect, Valentino Pompeo.

    And what is the first thing Greystone and Pompeo do?  They try to supersede the applicant of record with the NYC Buildings Department in August, a full  month before the hearing with the NYC Buildings Department.

    Not acting like good corporate citizens, are they?

    Well, this is a spot that gets interesting.

    When you supersede the applicant of record, you pay the outgoing architect for the use of his plans / drawings.

    Or, absent that, you do new drawings and file a document with the NYC dBuildings Department that contains the dated signatures of the new architect and the the owner of record.

    That would be impossible for Greystone as the owner of record since early June the owner of record has been me, Eric Richmond.  And they were on notice of that as of July 1, 2017 when 11 people including several Buildings Department officials, Blink Fitness, Greystone and Mayor De Blasio were served an affidavit to that effect.

Given that Greystone knew and the NYC Buildings Department knew, how on earth can Jeffrey Simpson of Greystone and Valentino Pompeo submit anything to supersede the applicant of record, especially an undated application.

Note Valentino Pompeo did not date his signature. 

Note that Jeffrey Simpson did not date his signature.

Did Greystone not inform Pompeo of the situation?

And, who at the NYC Buildings Department accepted an undated application?

As we have seen the NYC Buildings Department accept photocopied signatures in lieu of necessary original signatures, we can't say we are surprised.

But this is ridiculous.  

Add to that the fact that Herrick and Feinstein, attorneys for Greystone (legal warhorse Greenberg and Traurig nowhere to be seen), are now seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to protect non-parties (Blink, PNC Bank, Old Republic Title Company, Starbucks) in the lawsuit at:

10 AM in the Ex Parte Office, Part 72, Room 295 at the Supreme Court, Kings County, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York

Pretty stupid seeking TRO to quell dissemination of information to indispensable parties.  You would think they would want to have all the facts so as to protect themselves from the lying and thieving horde at Greystone.

Truth sucks Greystone, Blink, PNC Bank, Starbucks, Pompeo, Goldner et al.

Card image cap

Socks v. Hawkes II

Socks (Avery S. Mehlman) is a Partner at Herrick and Feinstein.  We don't know what his middle name is, but he wears funny socks.  Thus, we name him "Socks."

Hawkes is Eric Hawkes Richmond.  We know his middle name because, well, he is us.

When these two last met in the courtroom of Ellen Spodek, despite Hawkes being the moving party, and, as such,  customarily the first to present oral argument, Socks darted out in front violating decorum.

Well, he should have shut his trap because he perjured himself twice within his first five or so sentences.

Surprisingly to Hawkes, Judge Spodek attempted to rule for Socks even before Hawkes spoke.  When Hawkes wouldn't have any of that foolishness and forced his right to oral argument on the record, the Judge eventually ruled for Hawkes all the while berating Hawkes for wanting to finish his own sentences.

Well, finding for Hawkes under on the Motion under CPLR 3024 gave Socks 10 days to serve Hawkes an amended complaint.

Absent serving such a complaint, which Hawkes said he was willing to accept on the spot shouldSocks actually strike the necessary portions in the copy served, the complaint is abandoned.

Socks failed to serve Hawkes in court.  Socks failed to serve Hawkes at all and Socks'  time to serve Hawkes (10 days) has lapsed.

Socks is a Nimrod, clearly.

All that being said, Socks goes up against Hawkes again on November 1 @230 PM (360 Adams Street. Courtroom 725, Brooklyn, NY) because Socks' panties are in a bunch about truthful statements about his malfeasance and perjuries that Hawkes has published on the web.

What a tangled web ewe weave Socks, really.