The Other Side of the Story: 47 East 3rd Street"I hope you will find this site informative. I thank you for taking the time to read the ‘other side' of the story."
- Alistair Economakis
Response to the July 11, 2008 Protest –
a threat to my family and property:
I have always respected the rights of people to express themselves regarding my desire to make the building I own a home for me and my family. However, the latest expression of certain persons cannot go without comment.
Our neighborhood was recently papered with a flyer announcing another protest in front of 47 East 3rd Street. This flyer states it is the work and the expression of a group identifying themselves as “LES” and is offensive on numerous fronts: not only for its profanity (is this really what our neighborhood children should be taught is an acceptable way to express oneself?) but for attributing to me the statement “Let Them Eat Cake”. I never made this statement nor any other like it. I find the statement offensive; and further I find its attribution to me to be threatening. As the statement was invoked to justify the death and destruction that came with the French Revolution, I hope that persons attending the protest do not mistakenly use it to justify the destruction of property.
While I respect that people have the right to disagree with my position regarding wanting to make the building I own my home, and while I believe that these persons are allowed to exercise such disagreement through peaceful means, I am disturbed that the tenor of this protest is not only threatening in nature, but is also encouraging protestors to damage the very property they presumably seek to preserve.
In an effort, once again, to try to resolve our differences, I recently sent a letter to all the tenants outlining clearly my repeated offers to guarantee that I intend to make 47 East 3rd Street the home for myself and my family and that I have no other agenda.
In addition to our recent letter, you can further confirm our offers by reading my sworn testimony that occurred during one of my depositions approximately one year ago. During my deposition I once again detail my position on this matter and my genuine desire to try to come to a resolution which would address the tenants' doubts about me making 47 East 3rd Street my home.
It is indeed disingenuous that despite all of our good faith efforts to offer ways to protect the tenants, the tenants have never agreed to even meet with us to discuss our many offers to guarantee that 47 East 3rd Street would become our home and instead, they have continued to publicly voice their skepticism of our intentions.
Please see below to learn about more of the offers we have made to the tenants over the years.
Offers we have made to the tenants:
Throughout the years of litigation, in good faith, we have made offers to the tenants. These offers included:
• Remain as tenants in the building – In April 2006, eager to move in to our building (my wife was 9 months pregnant with our second child), and preferring to move into a unified space (as opposed to having two separate living areas as is the present condition), we offered to resolve the entire case by not filing an appeal of the Supreme Court decision, and allowing six of the remaining nine tenants to keep their apartments. For the tenants in the three apartments which would allow us to unify the space we already had, we offered relocation and/or financial compensation. This offer was made in writing more than two years ago by our attorney.
The tenants were on 'high ground', with a favorable decision in Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the tenants maintained that there was no compromise; the tenants never even countered our offer and instead stated that they wished to pursue litigation. They believed as rental tenants they had more of a right to live in a building than its owner. Subsequently, as we had advised the tenants, we appealed, and the Supreme Court decision was unanimously reversed by both the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals.
I have always relayed to the tenants that I did not see the harm in meeting to discuss our differences (click here to see a sample of the many letters we have sent over the years), however they have maintained their position that there is no compromise: they believe that they have more of a right to live in my building than I do. Needless to say, I am pleased that both the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals have subsequently unanimously found that living in the building I own with my family is permitted by law.
• Guarantee that 47 East 3rd Street would become our home - As detailed above, from day one, we told the tenants that if their concern was that we were not going to make 47 East 3rd Street our home we would take that concern ‘off the table' by offering to guarantee that 47 East 3rd Street would become our primary residence in whatever reasonable manner the tenants wished. Since this was not an issue for us, we freely offered to have them provide us with suggestions about what would make them comfortable (e.g. we would take out a bond guaranteeing our residence etc.) They never entertained this proposal.
• Financial compensation – We have offered the tenants financial compensation numerous times and while indeed some tenants did accept our offers of compensation early in the litigation and successfully relocated, none of the remaining tenants have ever countered any of the offers of financial compensation made to them throughout the years.
• Relocation Apartments – We found a similar sized stabilized apartment, in far superior condition, in the same neighborhood, at a similar rent to that of some of the tenants and offered to relocate any tenant to this apartment (click here to read my October 31, 2005 letter sent to all the tenants outlining my offer). No tenant responded to our offer or even wished to look at the apartment.
More than three years ago, we began making good faith offers to relocate a tenant who is over 62 years of age to a comparable apartment as the law requires. Specifically we offered to relocate this tenant to one of three different completely renovated apartments of his choosing (click here to read our offers of alternate apartments). All three apartments were of similar size and we guaranteed that he would pay the same rent as he is currently paying for his apartment. Two apartments were located across the street. The other was a block and a half away. We even offered to renovate one of the relocation apartments to the tenant's specifications. We offered to have professional movers pack and move his belongings to whichever offered apartment he chose and, in addition, provide him with financial compensation. The tenant rejected all of our offers.
Trying to come to a Resolution:
Throughout the many years of litigation, we have continually tried to negotiate the matter to a fair resolution. Unfortunately, the tenants have never once agreed to meet with us to discuss their concerns, they have rejected all offers we have proffered and throughout the whole process, the tenants have maintained their position that there is no compromise and that they wish to litigate this matter.
Making 47 East 3rd Street Our Home
In April 2007 my family and I moved into the space available to us and have made 47 East 3rd Street our home. Unfortunately, however, due to tenants remaining in apartments, our living space is not contiguous and we are required to go through the public hallway to get from one part of our home to the other. Despite the awkward set up of our living space, we are thrilled to finally be living in our building and we love our neighborhood.
We have resigned ourselves to the fact that the tenants do not wish to compromise and try to discuss a mutually beneficial solution and instead wish to have the courts decide whether or not we have the right to live in the building we own. While we disagree with the rationale of the tenants of 47 East 3rd Street in not ever wanting to sit down with us to discuss their concerns and try to arrive at possible solutions, we respect their decision to litigate this matter. Back to top
The Court of Appeals and Appeals Court Decisions:
Obviously, my family and I are very pleased with the unanimous Court of Appeals decision which affirmed the unanimous Appellate Division decision. The Court of Appeals decision stated: "Of course the Legislature intended to make more rental housing available, but it also intended to allow owners to live in their own buildings if they choose to do so."
After what will be nearly five years of litigation, I am thankful that I will finally be permitted to have a trial in this matter and prove in court what I have always said I was going to do: that is, live in the building I own with my wife and family. Back to top
Prior to moving to 47 East 3rd Street I lived in the same house as my in-laws in a living space on the 5th floor of a brownstone in Brooklyn. I had lived in that space for nearly seven years, since my wife and I were married in 2001. When my wife became pregnant with our first son in 2003 we began looking for a long-term home for our growing family. It is at that point it occurred to me that we already owned a building, 47 East 3rd Street, and we decided to make the building we own our home. (47 East 3rd Street is the only property exclusively owned by my wife and me -- whether in any type of corporate form, or individually. This has been fully disclosed to the tenants through extensive Court Ordered pre-trial discovery in which we were required to produce hundreds of documents and undergo days of questioning by their attorneys).
While I believe that an owner has a right to reside in a property he owns, an owner's use proceeding should not be undertaken lightly; so before tenants received any legal notification that their leases would not be renewed, my wife and I personally contacted the tenants to advise them of our intention to make 47 East 3rd Street our home and asked if we could have a meeting with them. Unfortunately, during all the years of litigation, as my wife and I have been trying to make 47 East 3rd Street our home, the tenants have never agreed to any of our numerous requests to meet with them to discuss their concerns and how we can provide them with assurances that our intentions are genuine.
It took nearly four years, and we have had two children since litigation began, but we were finally able to at least occupy the space that was available to us in the building we own in April 2007.
Back to topThe Case: A Fundamental Question:
Essentially this is a case about two parties: a building's owner and its rental tenants, wanting to live in the same building. The fundamental question is: who has a greater right to reside in a building: its owner or its rental tenants? I believe that an owner has a greater right to reside in his building than his tenants. The law provides this right and the courts have upheld it. And while I understand that my decision to reside in my property will require the tenants to relocate, I have always tried to ameliorate the affects of relocation by offering the tenants such things as financial compensation and relocation to apartments within the neighborhood at comparable rents. However the tenants have maintained that there is no compromise.
Back to topOur Vision for 47 East 3rd Street:
My wife and I envision making 47 East 3rd Street a home similar to the one in which we lived in with my in-laws: we had three generations living under one roof. My wife returned to New York City and chose to live in her childhood home after working for a number of years in Minnesota. When I married my wife we were provided with the wonderful opportunity to live with her family. Prior to moving to 47 East 3rd Street, I had lived with my wife's parents and siblings since we were married. My in-laws will attest to the joy they have experienced in having their ever expanding family so close. We wish to create such a home of our own -- where our children can thrive, learn and co-habit together for years to come in the heart of New York City; a home to which our children feel they can always return.
Back to top
Building and Neighborhood Improvements:
In addition to renovating and combining apartments that are available to us, we have meticulously restored the exterior of the building brick by brick. We have installed a cornice (previously it was just cemented roughly over bricks at the top front of the building) and cleaned and pointed the entire building.
We have restored the exterior of a magnificent historical building that otherwise was neglected.
Before and After PhotosWe have also taken the time and expense to build a garbage platform in the rear of the building so that the trash cans could be relocated from the front of the building, where they were unsightly and often overflowing with garbage, to the rear of the building.
We also had an iron tree guard constructed to protect the tree in front of our home. We subsequently replaced the existing dirt surrounding the tree with new soil and planted flowers beneath the tree.
The positive feedback we have received due to the overall beautification that has occurred to the building since we have moved in has been a pleasant surprise.
47 East 3rd Street: BE INFORMED!
This was our response to a rally organized by the Tenants that occurred in front of our home on April 14, 2007
There has been a lot of misinformation proliferated by the tenants of 47 East 3rd Street. This flyer was created in an effort to set the record straight. I thank all those who contributed and offered their support. It is greatly appreciated.
BE INFORMED! (click to link to the flyer)
Back to top
