C OLLINS , D OBKIN & M ILLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
277 B ROA DWAY, FO U RT EEN T H FLO O R
N EW YORK, N EW YO RK
100 07 2001
T IM OT HY L. CO LLINS
ST EPHEN DO B KIN
SET H A . M ILLER

T EL: (212) 587-2400

FA X : (212) 587-2410

W. M ILLER HA LL

O F CO U N SEL:
O LIV E KA REN STA M M
A NN E JA FFE
PA RA LEG A L:
JO NAT H A N LILIEN T H A L

November 8, 2013
Sherwin Belkin
Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
RE: Circulation of Settlement Offers at ST/PCV
Dear Mr. Belkin:
Some time between late last night and early this morning, the tenants of Stuyvesant Town
and Peter Cooper Village were blanketed with offers to resolve the various MCI orders issued over
the last month by DHCR. These were not simple communications conveying possible terms. They
were actual agreements, purportedly binding on the tenants if signed and returned.
As you are well aware, my firm represents a growing number of tenant households at
ST/PCV, including the Tenant Association (TA) which has several thousand active members.
Approximately two thousand of these members have signed public member pledges, authorizing the
TA to represent their interests. I have previously forwarded a copy of the pledge form to you.
Moreover, for the past several weeks we have engaged in discussions about a possible negotiated
resolution to the MCI claims and other matters. On November 1, 2013 you phoned and emailed to
inform me that your client would be reaching out to the tenants with terms of an offer regarding the
MCI increases. That communication from your client went out the same day as your effort to contact
me. Sent directly to the tenants (including my clients) it appeared to be an invitation to bargain
further and conveyed legal advice received regarding the viability of their applications.
The offers circulated today, however, are actual contracts inviting direct action acceptance
by signing and returning the form. The offers are problematic in several respects:
First, the offers to the non-Roberts class of tenants suggest that tenants who follow the TAs
lead in challenging the MCIs will lose their offers and possibly jeopardize the offers for others. The
language in the letter is as follows:
It is important to understand that under the rent stabilization laws a small number of MCI
appeals can impact the entire community. In the event that such a minority of residents seeks
to undo the effect of this settlement, we may have no option but to permanently withdraw this
offer as the Owner will then be forced to defend its rights.

That language renders the proposed agreement illusory, deceptive and unenforceable because
the offer is conditioned upon speculative circumstances which, should they occur, would result in
the withdrawal of the offer. The form places the owner in a situation of encouraging acceptance
while holding a trump card of unilateral termination.
Equally disturbing, the agreement appears to be an attempt to intimidate those tenants who
support the TAs challenge to the MCIs, by penalizing or diminishing their rights, in direct violation
of 230 of the Real Property Law which provides in relevant part:
No landlord shall interfere with the right of a tenant to ... join or participate in the lawful
activities of any group ... formed to protect the rights of tenants; nor shall any landlord...
punish, penalize, diminish or withhold any right, benefit or privilege of a tenant ...for
exercising such right.
In addition, since I was never informed by you that an apparently binding offer would be
directly circulated to my clients, if you or any member of your firm counseled the owner on making
the offer or otherwise reviewed or were informed of the offer prior to its circulation, such action may
violate New Yorks Code of Professional Responsibility which provides in relevant part:
4.2(b) Notwithstanding the prohibitions of paragraph (a), and unless otherwise
prohibited by law, a lawyer may cause a client to communicate with a represented
person unless the represented person is not legally competent, and may counsel the
client with respect to those communications, provided the lawyer gives reasonable
advance notice to the represented persons counsel that such communications will be
taking place.
One of the commentaries on that section of the Code notes that ...a lawyer may not advise
the client ... to encourage or invite the represented person to take actions without advice of counsel.
(emphasis added) If you or your firm participated in or approved of the letter which again is not
simply a discussion of terms but an actual contract ready for execution I must demand an
immediate retraction of the offers.
The terms offered are themselves deceptive and illusory in other respects.
As for the tenants not covered by the Roberts settlement:
First, there is no explanation that the retroactive portion of the MCI orders is subject to the
6% annual cap and that the retroactive portion is only added to the rent increases after the permanent
increases are added. Moreover, the retroactive portion is rather minuscule given the overall scope
of the orders. The agreement vaguely implies that the retroactive portion is due up front which is
not the case.
Second, withdrawal of the Owners appeal of $15 million of MCIs costs that the DHCR did
not approve is almost meaningless. The items not approved by the DHCR like sales taxes are
almost never approved and constitute very conservative adjustments in the costs claimed.
With respect to the Roberts tenants, it is my understanding that they were never served with
MCI orders at all. I see no present obligation on the part of the Roberts tenants to pay any increase.

Under the circumstances, it seems foolish to waive any rights.

For all of the above reasons and beyond the ethical issues noted I request that you advise
your client to immediately retract the letters.
The TA and its members reserve all rights with respect to the above.
Sincerely,

Timothy L. Collins