Talk:108 Leonard

File:LOSSING(1876) p538 NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.jpg --Metilsteiner (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

:''Built between 1894 and 1899, it is a New York City Landmark and is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places ...

::Yes, you are right, the lead was incorrect, although the body of the article is correct -- I've checked it against the Guide to New York City Landmarks. I've changed the lede to read "Built in two stages, from 1868 to 1870 and from 1894 to 1899, ..." BMK (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Template:Did you know nominations/108 Leonard}}

{{Talk:108 Leonard/GA1}}

{{edit COI|answered=yes}}

• Specific text to be added or removed: The developers also faced several legal challenges. In late 2015, political operative Dan Hoeg sued Peebles, claiming that the firm had refused to give him 25 percent of the project's profit as part of an agreement with Peebles.{{Cite web |last=Bockmann |first=Rich |date=September 3, 2015 |title=Ex-Peebles "partner" claims he was cut out of JV |url=https://therealdeal.com/2015/09/03/ex-peebles-partner-claims-he-was-cut-out-of-jv/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827160644/https://therealdeal.com/2015/09/03/ex-peebles-partner-claims-he-was-cut-out-of-jv/ |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=The Real Deal New York |language=en-US}} Peebles denied that Hoeg had any equity stake in the building, and he countersued the next year, claiming that Hoeg had lied on his resume.{{cite web |last=Cullen |first=Terence |date=February 26, 2016 |title=Peebles Corporation Counters That Jilted Partner Fibbed on Resume |url=https://commercialobserver.com/2016/02/peebles-corporation-counters-in-ny-supreme-court-that-jilted-partner-fibbed-on-resume/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827160642/https://commercialobserver.com/2016/02/peebles-corporation-counters-in-ny-supreme-court-that-jilted-partner-fibbed-on-resume/ |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=Commercial Observer}}{{Cite web |last=Stulberg |first=Ariel |date=February 29, 2016 |title=Peebles countersues former 346 Broadway "partner" |url=https://therealdeal.com/2016/02/29/peebles-countersues-former-346-broadway-partner/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827160641/https://therealdeal.com/2016/02/29/peebles-countersues-former-346-broadway-partner/ |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=The Real Deal New York |language=en-US}} former Peebles executive Daniel Newhouse had also sued Peebles for a stake in 346 Broadway's profits, but Newhouse had withdrawn his suit in 2015.{{Cite web |last=Stulberg |first=Ariel |date=August 26, 2015 |title=Ex-Peebles exec withdraws appeal in compensation case |url=https://therealdeal.com/2015/08/26/ex-peebles-exec-withdraws-appeal-in-compensation-case/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827160642/https://therealdeal.com/2015/08/26/ex-peebles-exec-withdraws-appeal-in-compensation-case/ |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=The Real Deal New York |language=en-US}} Preservationists sued in the New York Supreme Court, the trial-level court of New York state, to prevent the conversion of the clock tower into a private residence. The Supreme Court revoked the LPC's certificate of appropriateness in March 2016,{{Cite web |last=Malesevic |first=Sue |date=April 1, 2016 |title=Peebles' efforts to silence landmarked clocktower at 108 Leonard foiled |url=https://therealdeal.com/2016/04/01/peebles-efforts-to-silence-landmarked-clocktower-at-108-leonard-foiled/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827153036/https://therealdeal.com/2016/04/01/peebles-efforts-to-silence-landmarked-clocktower-at-108-leonard-foiled/ |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=The Real Deal New York |language=en-US}} despite the city government's own assertion that the building's owners did not have to maintain the clock.{{Cite news |last=Dunlap |first=David W. |date=June 8, 2016 |title=In a Rarity, New York Tells 2 Developers No |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/nyregion/in-a-rarity-new-york-tells-2-developers-no.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220616143209/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/nyregion/in-a-rarity-new-york-tells-2-developers-no.html |archive-date=June 16, 2022 |access-date=August 30, 2022 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}} Peebles and El-Ad also had an issue with an appraiser when Peebles sought to have El-Ad buy out his stake in the project.{{Cite web |date=May 4, 2017 |title=First Amended Verified Complaint |url=https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=nby36gXdLDeLk76sb4f49A== |access-date=2024-03-20 |publisher=New York State Unified Court System}} A panel of state judges upheld the Supreme Court's ruling in November 2017.{{cite web |last=Walker |first=Ameena |date=December 5, 2017 |title=Tribeca clock tower conversion will not include triplex penthouse |url=https://ny.curbed.com/2017/12/5/16737478/tribeca-clock-tower-conversion-court-decision |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827154538/https://ny.curbed.com/2017/12/5/16737478/tribeca-clock-tower-conversion-court-decision |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=Curbed NY}}{{cite web |last=Baird-Remba |first=Rebecca |date=December 1, 2017 |title=Landmarks Advocates Score a Victory in Clock Tower Building Case |url=https://commercialobserver.com/2017/12/tribeca-clock-tower-building-case-opens-up-potential-for-more-interior-nyc-landmarks/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220825224806/https://commercialobserver.com/2017/12/tribeca-clock-tower-building-case-opens-up-potential-for-more-interior-nyc-landmarks/ |archive-date=August 25, 2022 |access-date=August 25, 2022 |website=Commercial Observer}} Peebles and El-Ad developers also sued each other the same year, accusing each other of trying to derail the project. If the developers did not sell at least 35 apartments by August 2018, the city could take back ownership of the building.{{Cite web |last=Pilgrim |first=Lexi |date=August 10, 2017 |title=The battle of (346) Broadway: Peebles and Elad keep trading blows over Clock Tower project |url=https://therealdeal.com/2017/08/10/the-battle-of-346-broadway-peebles-and-elad-continue-to-exchange-blows-over-clock-tower-conversion/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827153035/https://therealdeal.com/2017/08/10/the-battle-of-346-broadway-peebles-and-elad-continue-to-exchange-blows-over-clock-tower-conversion/ |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=The Real Deal New York |language=en-US}}{{cite web |last=Warerkar |first=Tanay |date=August 11, 2017 |title=Tribeca clocktower building's future as condos is in jeopardy |url=https://ny.curbed.com/2017/8/11/16131248/tribeca-clocktower-building-conversion-stalled |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827154538/https://ny.curbed.com/2017/8/11/16131248/tribeca-clocktower-building-conversion-stalled |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=Curbed NY}} By November 2017, Peebles and El-Ad had resolved their legal disputes.{{cite web |last=Walker |first=Ameena |date=November 6, 2017 |title=New look at Tribeca clocktower building's condo-fied future |url=https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/6/16614460/condo-conversion-of-tribecas-clock-tower-building-gets-new-rendering |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827154537/https://ny.curbed.com/2017/11/6/16614460/condo-conversion-of-tribecas-clock-tower-building-gets-new-rendering |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=Curbed NY}}{{Cite web |last=Putzier |first=Konrad |date=October 5, 2017 |title=Peebles and Elad settle their spat over Clock Tower project in Tribeca |url=https://therealdeal.com/2017/10/05/peebles-and-elad-settle-spat-over-clock-tower-project-in-tribeca/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220827160643/https://therealdeal.com/2017/10/05/peebles-and-elad-settle-spat-over-clock-tower-project-in-tribeca/ |archive-date=August 27, 2022 |access-date=August 27, 2022 |website=The Real Deal New York |language=en-US}}

• Reason for the change: The court case discussed has nothing to do with this building at 108 Leonard Street. Therefore, it's irrelevant to the subject.

• References supporting change: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=nby36gXdLDeLk76sb4f49A==

UkObong (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• {{Respond|xmark|Not done:}} Per the article, 108 Leonard and 346 Broadway are the same building, which was in fact the subject of the court case and therefore relevant. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)