Moshe Drizin, a real estate investor, was named in multiple cases; nonetheless, the reasons why he was targeted remain unclear. Let’s look into it, but before we do that, it’s important that we have some background information about Moshe Drizin.
You can help us put a stop to online scams before they grow too big and end-up ruining thousands of lives. A scam is a scam, doesn’t matter if it’s big or small. Now that this is out of the way, let’s get started with the review.
Moshe Drizin: A Brief Overview
Moshe Drizin was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1963, and is most well-known for his work in a variety of different real estate businesses. However, there are many who look at his benevolent endeavors with mistrust and question the reason behind his gifts to nonprofit organizations and social projects.
These persons view his charitable work with uncertainty. They may imply that his philanthropic initiatives are motivated more by a desire to boost his public image than by a real dedication to the causes that he supports. This is a potentially damaging implication.
There is also the possibility that detractors may say that Moshe Drizin’s ownership of a large number of real estate holdings gives rise to legitimate worries regarding the influence that his business dealings have on the surrounding communities.
They could ask whether he places a higher priority on profit than the well-being of the people living in the communities where he invests in real estate.
We look at 34 different data points when analyzing and rating online money-earning opportunities. Once the research on these data points is submitted, expert contributors reach out to the company’s customers and associates to get more insight into their operation. Finally, all the collected information is presented in the form of this expert review.
All the data is extracted from publicly available information and the sources are given in the transparency section at the bottom of every report.
These reports are made possible by the collective efforts of contributors like you. If you would like to become a contributor then contact us here.
Even though Moshe Drizin and his real estate transactions have been the subject of news articles, some critics may say that such media coverage is too focused on his financial achievements and business wins out, potentially obscuring any bad aspects or controversies related to his real estate endeavors.
Despite the fact that Moshe Drizin is well-known for his humanitarian activities and his investments in real estate, there are some people who have doubts about the lack of ulterior intentions in his charitable donations and who have worries regarding the potentially harmful effects that his real estate operations could have on local communities.
There is also the possibility that detractors may suggest that the coverage of his activities in the media has a pattern of emphasizing his achievements while downplaying any elements of his business that are less than ideal.
So, what are your thoughts on the things he has been doing? Are they genuine or a complex scam designed to cover up his negative impact?
You may visit the following links to learn more about Moshe Drizin:
- https://www.crunchbase.com/person/moshe-drizin
- https://twitter.com/DrizinMoshe
- https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=G_NiLNMAAAAJ&hl=en
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/moshe-drizin
Moshe Drizin: The Charges Against Him
The legal document in question seems to be a court ruling or judgment written by Justice Kassal in an instance where the defendants (that also include Moshe Drizin) were requesting authorization to depose a nonparty witness, Bernard Tannenbaum, in a disagreement over a real estate broker’s commission. Bernard Tannenbaum was not a party to the lawsuit.
Let’s go through this document section by section and discuss the most important takeaways and explanations:
The defendants in this case are being sued by a real estate broker who asserts that they engaged him to locate a buyer for a piece of land. The broker claims that he was successful in finding a buyer who was both willing and able to acquire the real estate at the price that was previously agreed upon and that as a result, he is entitled to a fee.
The prospective buyers’ legal representation, Bernard Tannenbaum, was a witness that the defendants intended to cross-examine. They received the impression that Tannenbaum was in possession of crucial information on the buyer’s readiness, willingness, and ability to purchase the home, as well as the reasons why the transaction did not go through in the end.
At first, the court did not grant the defendant’s request to depose Tannenbaum and instead suggested that they utilize written interrogatories in their place.
The rationale given by the court for the deposition request being denied was that the defendants had not demonstrated “adequate special circumstances” to warrant the request.
The defendants (including Moshe Drizin) wanted to take the deposition under the provisions of CPLR 3101(a)(4), which permitted the deposition of nonparty witnesses provided that “adequate special conditions” were provided.
The defendants filed an appeal against the decision that denied their request. In their appeal, they said that Tannenbaum was in possession of important and significant information that was essential for their preparation for the trial.
The Court’s Analysis of the Situation:
Following a review of the decision made by the lower court, the appellate court determined that the ruling should be overturned because it was incorrect.
The court underlined that the requirement for “special circumstances” should be interpreted broadly in accordance with CPLR 3101(a)(4) so as to promote full disclosure and aid in trial preparation.
The court based its view on prior instances and stated that even a showing that the deposition is needed to prepare for trial should be sufficient as a “special circumstance.” These examples were mentioned in order to support the court’s opinion.
Concerning the Current Situation of Tannenbaum:
The court did not agree with the contention that Tannenbaum ought to have been included in the case as a party respondent. It was pointed out that he had not taken part in the proceedings, presented any papers, or attempted to intervene in the case.
Tannenbaum was supplied with notice of the motion by the defendants, but he did not voluntarily offer a statement as requested.
In addition, the court offered its thoughts on the defendants’ approach to the procedural aspects of the case. They had initially applied for a court order to depose Tannenbaum prior to delivering a subpoena, which meant that the burden of proof was on them to demonstrate that they were legally entitled to such discovery.
The Consequences of the Amendment of 1984:
The court accepted that the CPLR 3101(a)(4) had been amended in 1984 to remove the need for authorization from the court to take a statement of a nonparty witness. However, it contended that the lenient meaning of “exceptional circumstances” should still apply under the revised Act.
The court came to the conclusion that the defendants had proven a genuine foundation for the requested deposition after hearing their argument.
The deposition of Tannenbaum was necessary for trial preparation because he possessed knowledge of pertinent factual concerns involving the prospective purchaser’s willingness and ability to buy the property. Therefore, the ruling of the lower court was overturned, and the court gave the defendants permission to interrogate Tannenbaum as a nonparty witness.
It was decided that the ruling of the lower court should be overturned, and the defendants were given permission to take Bernard Tannenbaum’s deposition as a nonparty witness.
The court also decided that the defendants should be granted the costs and disbursements involved with the appeal.
This legal document provides an overview of a court’s decision to grant the respondent’s request for deposition of a nonparty witness in a real estate commission dispute. The judgment highlights the court’s liberal treatment of “special circumstances” to allow for such depositions to allow for assistance in the preparation of the trial.
Moshe Drizin gets $75M FIDI Office Tower Financing
In the Financial District, at 22 Cortlandt Street, Moshe Drizin, who is a partner in the Mayore Estates cooperation, has been successful in obtaining a mortgage loan for the substantial amount of $75 million for the office building.
However, this economic move comes as a substitute for a previous financing from New York Community Bank in the amount of $65 million, which dates back to 2012 and includes an additional gap mortgage in the amount of $10 million.
Between Church Street and Broadway is where you’ll find this impressive office building that has 34 stories and encompasses a total area of 647,900 square feet. A multi-level Century 21 department store can be found at the building’s base, which is an interesting fact to take into consideration.
This piece of real estate has seen its share of upheaval over the course of its existence. In 2003, Moshe Drizin and his business partners attempted to save the building by submitting a petition for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Court.
The key factor that led to this decision was the declining rental revenue, which was principally brought on by the temporary closure of the property in the wake of the awful events that occurred on 9/11.
Prior to the occurrence of these unlucky events, the entire building had been rented out to tenants. However, in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, a number of tenants either moved out of the building or initiated legal proceedings against Moshe Drizin and his business partners, as reported by the New York Post.
Moshe Drizin: He was listed among the worst Landlord
The RTCNYC Coalition and JustFix.NYC, two groups advocating for tenants’ rights, named Crown Heights, Brooklyn landlord Shalom Drizin as “one of the worst evictors in the area” in 2018. Fieldbridge Associates, which was run by Drizin, oversaw the Bedford Avenue construction of Ebbets Field.
As part of their advocacy for tenants’ rights, tenant advocates in New York City created a map detailing the worst evictors in the city. At the Ebbets Field Housing Development, Moshe Drizin was responsible for the eviction of 16 households in 2018, making him the second-worst evictor in all of Brooklyn. In addition to illegal rent hikes, tenants complained about unsafe living conditions, unsolved repairs, fires, and other hazards.
The Pinnacle Group was at the top, having forced the relocation of 27 households from
locations across Brooklyn, including Flatbush, Prospect-Lefferts Gardens, and Crown Heights. An inquiry by the Attorney General was launched into their eviction practices in 2006, and a city rule permitting tenants to sue for harassment was passed in 2008.
Jacob and Naftali Hager, landlords with properties in several boroughs, recently evicted eleven families, three of whom lived in a single Flatbush building. Moshe Piller, another Brooklyn landlord, was involved in a terrible incident involving two infants in 2016 and was responsible for evicting eight households.
In addition to being sued in 2018 for failing to provide adequate heat to a tenant, Flatbush landlord Michael Niamonitakis was placed seventh on New York City’s worst landlord list in 2016. He had previously evicted eight households.
Moshe Piller was the target of a demonstration organized by the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project and held outside the Brooklyn Housing Court. For example, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams advocated for the Right to Counsel law, which gives renters access to legal representation in housing court, in an effort to reduce the number of evictions.
These occurrences demonstrated the severity of the problem of massive evictions and the importance of stricter legislation to safeguard tenants in New York City.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that Moshe Drizin is an untrustworthy real estate investor who was sued in court cases as a result of his involvement in a dishonest and scam artist a criminal organization.
You may follow the link mentioned below:
At some point, it would be noticed, that people got easily scammed by these scammers as they blindly trusted them.
Why are people like Moshe not behind the bar?
I would say that investors must stay away from these scammers.
That’s Terrible. Thank you for providing such informative stuff.
How horrible a creature he is? On one side he is doing charitable work and on the other side, he has ties with criminal organizations.
How it is possible for him to do these bluffs? But I really appreciate the efforts of the court.