Skip to main content

Featured Post

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park graphic: what's built/what's coming + FAQ (pinned post)

More manuevering at the corner of Carlton and Pacific with Boymelgreen firms pushed toward bankruptcy by (alleged) tenant

The saga of Henry Weinstein's properties at the corner of Carlton Avenue and Pacific Street [fixed]--a six-story building and two parking lots--just keeps getting stranger.

Remember, Weinstein won a court battle to evict tenant Shaya Boymelgreen, who operated his headquarters in Weinstein's building at 752 Pacific Street and had subleased that property--without Weinstein's consent--to Forest City Ratner, allowing the developer to claim that it controlled more of the Atlantic Yards footprint than it actually did.

Then Weinstein tried to get Boymelgreen evicted. Yesterday, before representatives of the sheriff's office could pursue eviction, Boymelgreen's tenant--or perhaps the developer himself--threw a wrench into those plans.

Tenant's rights?

In an article headlined Two Boymelgreen firms threatened with bankruptcy, Crain's New York Business reported:
A company claiming to be a tenant in Shaya Boymelgreen's American headquarters in Brooklyn filed to push two companies controlled by the embattled developer into Chapter 7 bankruptcy last week. The tenant's legal move was made to avoid being evicted along with Mr. Boymelgreen, whose firm was slated to be removed from 752 Pacific Ave. Tuesday.
An earlier version of that article less skeptically said the filing was made by a "tenant."

Weinstein, who said Boymelgreen owes him about $200,000 in back rent, told me there's no subtenant, since he would have had to have been informed of it.

That raises the question as to whether 752 Pacific St. Corp., the alleged tenant that filed the petition to stop the eviction process, is truly separate from Boymelgreen. Weinstein raised the question of whether there was fraud involved.


  1. Is Boymelgreen litigating with his own goals and purposes in mind, for what will give Boymelgreen the most benefit in this situation? Or is Boymelgreen's purpose something else, to destroy the value of the property for Mr. Weinstein. And in that case, is he shouldering his own expenses?

    Boymelgreen has acted collusively with Ratner before in this litigation with ESDC being fully knowledgeable and therefore complicit in what was going on. Does ESDC simply believe that this is a version of hardball government style development? These shenanigans are brought to us courtesy of the government: Your New York taxpayer dollars at work!


Post a Comment