Looking at ownership transfers for Vanderbilt Yard parcels that now involve "Brooklyn Ascending" entities. Plus: a key role for Fortress?

So, are any of the various "Brooklyn Ascending" ownership entities--ten of which are apparently part of the Atlantic Yards deal, as I wrote--involved in any property transactions?

Yes, indeed, according to the city's Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) database, with transactions involving the parcels on the Vanderbilt Yard.

From REO to Mezz

For example, one recent document memorializes a transfer from Brooklyn Ascending REO JV to Brooklyn Ascending Mezz. 

REO JV, the grantor/seller, may involve the U.S. Immigration Fund (USIF) and Fortress Investment Group, which held collateral to six railyard (B5-B10) sites after developer Greenland USA defaulted on loans from immigrant investors under the EB-5 investor visa program.

That default led to a foreclosure, with Cirrus Workforce Housing ultimately taking over financial control of the project, with a USIF affiliate and Fortress remaining passive partners.

The grantee/buyer, Brooklyn Ascending Mezz, likely reflects mezzanine financing, which is subordinated to senior debt. That could be a new Fortress/USIF entity--though I'm not certain--since it means they'd be further back in the line to get repaid.

Both, by the way, claim an address of 836 Atlantic Avenue, which, according to the city portal defaults to Lot 42 (highlighted on map), which is not an office or residential address and has the default address of 516 Vanderbilt Avenue.

Screenshot from city's Property Information Portal; annotations added

Not all the parcels

The parcels at issue in the transfer involve the full western block of the railyard, between Sixth and Carlton avenues:

• Block 1120, Lot 1 (680 Atlantic)
• Block 1120, Lot 19 (716 Atlantic)
• Block 1120, Lot 35 (N/A Atlantic)

Those correspond to the three development parcels B5, B6, and B7, as indicated on the map.

Those transactions also include parcels on the eastern block, between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues, but not the full block:

• Block 1121, Lot 47 (524 Vanderbilt)
• Block 1121, Lot 42 (516 Vanderbilt)

Those are formerly privately owned sites incorporated in the revamped Vanderbilt Yard. 

Development sites created

Interestingly enough, the sites on Block 1121 do not include Lot 1, which, according to the New York City Property Information Portal, remains owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and was slated to be divided into three development sites, B8 through B10.

That, I suspect, means that the project developers have finished paying the MTA for air rights--as negotiated in June 2009--for the parcels (B5-B7) on the western block, but not on the eastern block. 

The developers must pay about $11 million a year through June 2030, though I wouldn't be surprised if they seek to extend the payments, given that they likely won't be working on Block 1121 by then. (My Freedom of Information Law request was stonewalled.)

The new development team, Cirrus Workforce Housing and LCOR, has proposed eliminating the B8 tower, re-allocating its bulk elsewhere, and using that parcel for open space. The parcels B9 and B10 would have towers.

Value of transfer

The document, dated Oct. 7, 2025, does not set out a value to the transaction, nor does it suggest an actual sale.

However, the New York City Real Property Transfer Tax of $757,986.01 and the New York State Real Estate Transfer Tax of $208,550.50 may offer a clue.

The New York City tax rate is 2.625%. So $757,986.01 is 2.625% of $28,875,657.52.

The New York State tax rate for transactions of this size is $3.25 for each $500, or .65%. So $208,550.50 is .65% of $32,084,692.31. 

Those numbers are not the same, but they're reasonably close. (I may be missing something in the calculation.)

Why a valuation near $30 million? Unclear. Given that some $286 million in EB-5 debt remained, that seems a tiny fraction, if it's supposed to reflect the remaining value.

Different deals

Two other transactions involved the same parcels.

AY Phase II Mezzanine and AY Phase III Mezzanine, the Greenland entities that took out the EB-5 loans and offered the railyard parcels as collateral, transferred property to Brooklyn Ascending Assignee, which I assume is a Cirrus entity.

For each of the transactions (AY Phase II Mezzanine document and AY Phase III Mezzanine document), the city transfer tax was $1,425 and the state transfer tax was $400. That city tax is 2.625% of $54,285.71. The state tax is .65% is .4% of $61,538.46.

Again, a discrepancy, but those figures are in the ballpark. 

The low value suggests only a nominal remaining stake, but, again, I might be missing something.

A lease transfer

A longer document, an assignment of an interim lease, involves AY Phase II Development Company, originally a Greenland entity, to Brooklyn Ascending Owner, which is a foreign limited liability company, and thus might be another Greenland entity.

That document involves no real property transfer tax, just a filing fee, so no value can be assigned.

While "Brooklyn Ascending Owner" sounds like a significant role, but that's hardly certain, especially since Brooklyn Ascending LandCo has been the term used by Empire State Development (ESD)--the state authority that oversees/shepherds the project-- to describe the development team.

Curiously enough, the person signing the document on behalf of each party, David N. Brooks, is the General Counsel of Fortress Investment Group.

The Interim Lease on March 4, 2010 was from Empire State Development to the Atlantic Yards Development Company, a Forest City entity. 

It was later assigned to Atlantic Yards Venture, a joint venture involving Forest City and Greenland, and then to AY Phase II Development Company, which was a Greenland entity, though it once may have been a joint venture.

So it's possible that Fortress (and a USIF affiliate?) now control that nominal Greenland entity, which itself is subordinated to Cirrus.

Yes, I have a lot of speculation here, but the deals are complex. As law firm Pryor Cashman stated:

Pryor Cashman represented Cirrus Real Estate Partners in a 10-month transaction that combined distressed debt-restructuring, complex joint ventures, loan origination, unique cross collateralization and collateral security structures, bankruptcy and creditors rights issues and negotiation of development and management agreements. Pryor Cashman’s use of its expertise in these varied disciplines culminated in Cirrus gaining control of the remaining high-profile development sites of the Pacific Park project encompassing more than two City blocks adjacent to the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York, and stabilizing distressed assets in Los Angeles.

Note that, while Cirrus Workforce Housing, an entity created by Cirrus Real Estate Partners, is said to be the developer moving forward, Cirrus Real Estate Partners did the deal.

Nothing on Site 5

By the way, I could find no new documentation regarding the parcels at Site 5, catercorner to the arena, long home to the big-box stores P.C. Richard and Modell's (now the Brooklyn Basketball Training Center).

So Pacific Park Site 5 Developer, which in 2021 signed an interim lease with ESD regarding a giant, two-tower project there, apparently remains as an entity. It likely has new ownership, with Cirrus taking over from Greenland.

Indeed, while the LLC was formed Nov. 12, 2019, according to Delaware Secretary of State, it filed documentation with New York State on July 17, 2025. That, presumably, was when Cirrus leveraged control.