Residents' worries over celebrity skyscraper
Condo owners at the iconic luxury skyscraper on New York City's Billionaires Row have accused the developers of 'deliberate and far-reaching fraud' in covering up extensive cracking in the building's concrete facade.
A lawsuit filed by the condo board at 432 Park Avenue accuses CIM Group and other developers of ignoring warnings from architects and engineers about the cracks, and failing to alert potential buyers and city inspectors, Realtor reports.
CIM Group categorically denies the allegations and will be moving to dismiss the complaint in court, the developer's Chief Strategy Officer Jami Schlicher told Realtor.com in a brief phone interview.
The suit filed last month claims that 'thousands of severe cracks' in the white concrete facade led to water intrusion and corrosion in the building. The owners are seeking US$165 million ($254.6m) in damages, plus compensation for alleged loss of property values.
The civil complaint includes photos that are said to depict cracks and spalling in the building's exterior concrete, and cites a 2016 report from a concrete consultant that identified 1,893 defects in the facade.
'As the complaint details, this matter extends beyond negligence into an alleged calculated scheme, driven by greed, that eroded trust,' said plaintiff's attorneys Terrence Oved and Darren Oved in a joint statement to Realtor.com.
'Such reprehensible misconduct warrants, and will receive, a forceful and uncompromising response.'
The attorneys added that the condo board 'is diligently working to remediate these issues, obtain complete recovery for the unit owners and an award of punitive damages against defendants.'
The new lawsuit is not the first dispute between the condo owners and developers of 432 Park Avenue.
A separate civil suit filed several years ago alleged a plethora of defects in the building, including noisy trash chutes, stuck elevators, and swaying from the building's slender design.
MORE: ' Millions teetering' - Grim new debt warning to Aussie homeowners
Completed in 2015, the 425.5m tall skyscraper towers over Central Park along Manhattan's so-called Billionaires Row and has become an iconic part of the city's skyline.
The luxury tower was briefly home to Jennifer Lopez and Alex Rodriguez, who purchased a three-bedroom unit there in 2018 for $15.3 million, which they sold less than a year later.
Other notable current and former residents include Douglas Elliman Chairman Howard Lorber, fashion designer David Chu, and art dealer Helly Nahmad, according to published reports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Daily Telegraph
What NYC shooting means for Australian contact sport's future
Don't miss out on the headlines from Other Sports. Followed categories will be added to My News. The horrific New York City shooting has sparked concerns about the ramifications in Australia, particularly across some of the country's most prolific sporting codes. Details emerging after gunmen Shane Devon Tamura killed four people in an NYC office, before turning the gun on himself, revealed his likely intended target was the offices of the National Football League. The NFL's offices were in the same building but weren't accessible through the elevator Tamura mistakenly used. A note left by the shooter revealed he blamed playing American football (which he played in his youth) for his supposed struggle with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a neurological disease plaguing many Australian athletes in contact sports. 'Football gave me CTE and it cause me to drink a gallon of antifreeze. You can't go against the NFL. They'll squash you,' Tamura wrote in a in a three-page note found in his wallet. 'Please study brain for CTE. I'm sorry. The league knowingly concealed the dangers to our brains to maximise profits. 'They failed us.' This image from surveillance video obtained by The Associated Press shows Shane Tamura outside a Manhattan office building on Monday, July 28, 2025 in New York. Photo: AP Photo. After his shooting spree, Tamura shot himself in the chest, suspected to be in a bid to avoid his brain in hopes of it being studied. Despite suspecting he had CTE, the condition can only be diagnosed definitively after death. The brain disorder is a form of dementia and occurs typically from repeated concussions and head trauma during a sporting career. Fans of Australian sport will be all too familiar with CTE and the long term impact of athlete concussion, including suicide. Rugby league great and premiership winning coach Paul Green tragically took his own life in 2022, a post mortem analysis revealing he had a severe form of CTE. Across codes, AFL legends Danny Frawley and Shane Tuck had the same diagnosis after their suicides in 2019 and 2020. Tamura played football in high school and in his suicide note blamed the NFL for his suspected CTE condition. Photo: Las Vegas Dept. Motor Vehicle via AP. The NRL community lost former player and coach Paul Green after he committed suicide, with a post-mortem later revealing he had suffered from CTE. Photo:. With the sports bringing in new measures in recent years in hopes of stamping out blunt contact to the head, there are major concerns about the impact of the disease on players given it cannot be diagnosed until it is too late. While yet to be diagnosed, the NYC shooters claims of CTE paint a scary portrait for an affliction Australia's sport is starting to learn much more about. Sports Medicine Australia CEO Jamie Crain warned a lack of understanding around the risks of concussion in professional and community sport in Australia could pose serious long term health issues if not managed properly. But the expert believes this country 'does quite well' dealing with minimising concussion, but after the events in the US, admits people will be on alert to CTE and the possible effects. The priority instead of trying to completely eradicate concussions should be to manage them when they happen. 'Because it will happen, it's just an inherent part of contact sport, certainly with football and rugby and those types of sports,' he said. Danny Frawley took his own life in 2019, after which it was determined he suffered from CTE. Photo: Supplied. Richmond player Shane Tuck suffered from the same condition before suicide in 2020. Photo:. While Crain believes rules may need to be tweaked, the challenge is striking a balance, not becoming so alarmed that parents take their kids out of playing contact sport, as that poses its own issues. 'We might then indirectly encourage a sedentary lifestyle and that brings itself a lot of potential long term health issues. 'There could inevitably be some rule changes that do need to take place within those particular sports to minimise the risk. I think that we won't be able to eradicate it. 'But we do need to manage it and then when concussion does happen, we look after those players in the best possible way.' Originally published as Chilling warning for Australia in wake of New York City bloodbath
News.com.au
a day ago
- News.com.au
Annabel Digance launches $2.3m lawsuit against South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas
Former Labor parliamentarian Annabel Digance has dropped a bombshell $2.3m lawsuit on South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, claiming he orchestrated a 'malicious prosecution' against her. The lawsuit, filed with the SA Supreme Court, alleges Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to prosecute Mrs Digance in order to crush her political future and prevent a parliamentary inquiry she supported on alleged bullying in the Labor Party. The police arrested and charged Mr and Mrs Digance for blackmail in April 2021 for alleged conduct against Mr Malinauskas. The conduct centred on secret recordings between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Digance in February 2020 and Mr and Mrs Digance in March 2020. The blackmail charge was dropped in 2023 after the Digances agreed to refrain from any further contact with Mr Malinauskas. The claim, submitted by Carroll and O'Dea Solicitors, states the arrest and prosecution caused Mrs Digance 'injury, loss, damage and harm'. 'The circumstances giving rise to the causes of action immediately caused the cancellation of Mrs Digance's employment, permanently damaged Mrs Digance's prospects of further employment, required Mrs Digance to incur substantial legal expenses in defending herself against the prosecution and required Mrs Digance to incur medical expenses,' the claim states. The lawsuit is directed against both the premier and the South Australian police. 'The members of SA Police conducting the arrest, the search and seizure, the detention, the first bail decision and pursuing the malicious prosecution knew each action was unnecessary, unjustified, unlawful,' the claim states. Mrs Digance is asking for $2.3m in damages. In separate defence claims, both Mr Malinauskas and the SA Police and Prosecution deny Mrs Digance is entitled to the relief claimed and request the court dismiss her suit and cover costs of the proceedings. Mr Malinauskas' defence statement flatly denies allegations that he 'requested' the police pursue a prosecution or that he was acting to suppress the parliamentary inquiry. 'The first respondent (Malinauskas) admits only that on or about April 9, 2021, he contacted SA Police and told them that if SA Police were of the view that a prosecution of the applicant (Digance) and or her husband was justified, he would co-operate to the extent necessary in that prosecution whenever it was to occur,' the defence claim states. The claim submitted on behalf of the SA Police also rejects Mrs Digance's assertions. 'The investigation undertaken by SAPOL into the blackmail offence was appropriate,' the claim states. The blackmail offence was laid based on information available to SAPOL including the complaint made by the first respondent, the recorded conversations … and other witness and documentary evidence obtained by SAPOL during the course of its investigation. 'The sole purpose for initiating and maintaining the blackmail offence was the proper invocation of the criminal law.' The matter will be heard at the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday.
SBS Australia
a day ago
- SBS Australia
Are Australians at risk from lifting the restrictions on US beef imports?
"Australia bans — and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything — but they ban American beef. Yet we imported $3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. They won't take any of our beef. They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and, you know what I don't blame them, but we're doing the same thing.' When United States President Donald Trump singled out Australia's ban on US beef imports, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would never compromise on protecting farmers or biosecurity. "We have made it very clear to the United States that we will not compromise on biosecurity. We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination. Indeed, we've made it a priority to strengthen biosecurity, because one of the things that makes Australian food and fibre the best in the world is a people everywhere, know that it stands for quality. It also stands for safety." Now, ahead of the tariff deadline on August 1, Australia's restrictions on US beef imports have been dropped. But the government says the timing of the decision is a coincidence, and has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Minister for Agriculture, Julie Collins, says a review into the US beef ban began in 2015 under the Coalition Government. "This decision has been purely based on science and a rigorous assessment by my department. Biosecurity risk assessment process is very robust and I have faith in the officials in my department to do this appropriately. These are experts in the field. Australia's biosecurity system is world-renowned for a reason and this assessment has now been completed." In 2019, Australia changed restrictions to allow beef imports from cattle traceably born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. In practice, however, the ongoing biosecurity rules meant that only a small amount of beef, largely shelf-stable products, were imported from the US. "We are assured that the supply chain and traceability and the safety of any food coming into Australia is safe. The US, of course, has been able to bring beef into Australia since 2019. Our farmers, are of course, are exporting already to the United States. We're exporting over four billion dollars' worth of beef to the United States presently and our farmers are a net beneficiary of our two-way trading system." So, why was the ban imposed in the first place? And should Australians be concerned about eating beef imported from the US? In 2003, Australia placed restrictions on the import of US beef in response to an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, more commonly known as Mad Cow Disease. Humans cannot contract mad cow disease, though in rare cases they can develop a variant which leads to dementia and premature death. However, the Australian food regulator deems US beef is low-risk. Trade Minister Don Farrell says the government would not compromise standards for trade. "We have not made any compromise and we certainly have not compromised Australia's strict biosecurity laws. This has been a process that's been underway for the last 10 years. It's now come to a completion and it's appropriate that we announce the results of that inquiry. But at no stage do we risk our terrific biosecurity standards for any trade arrangement." One key concern remaining after 2019 was that Mexico's livestock tracking system could inadvertently allow beef from disease-affected regions to enter Australia. However, the government says the review has found that the US Department of Agriculture protocols for beef imported from Canada and Mexico now address Australia's biosecurity concerns. Mark Thomas, the Chair of the Western Beef Association, says it's unclear how effective the US tracking system is. "Well, we implement an NIL system, as they call it, so any animal that's born on your property has a electronic tag, and that same tag is scanned and transferred whenever that animal leaves your property, all the way through to sort of slaughter. So an animal that's been slaughtered, they can go back and work out where that animal has been over its lifetime. I am unsure how quickly America can get up to speed. However, it's taken many, many years for Australia to implement that system and make sure that it works efficiently." Despite government assurances, National Party leader David Littleproud is among critics calling for an independent examination into the matter. "The government has not provided or released the protocols on which the beef from the U.S could be imported into this country. Those are the legal requirements that an importer would have to meet to bring beef from the United States into Australia, that was from Mexico or Canada. The fact they haven't done that raises serious concerns to me around how this decision has been made and the timing of it. If it was well planned, the department would be able to provide me with those details. They have not. I think the prudent way forward is to have an independent scientific panel review the department's decision and the protocols when they came out." Along with concerns about the spread of disease, there are also concerns about differing US regulations around the use of hormones and antibiotics on cattle. While some cattle in the US are given approved natural or synthetic hormones to help them grow, the US Food and Drug Administration regulates these, and experts say they are in extremely low levels. US beef, according to both Australian and US officials, is safe to eat, but is it better than Australian beef? Evangeline Mantzioris is the Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of South Australia. She says the diet of an animal impacts the nutritional value of the meat. "What it comes down to is the type of feed that the animals are given. So in the US they tend to be grain-fed whilst here in Australia, they tend to be grass-fed, and that produces differences in the way that the body of the cow handles it and in the way that they make and lay down fat in their body. The other thing that might make a slight difference is also the genetics of the cows. So assuming it's the same breed of cow, we expect grain-fed to lead to more fat in the meat compared to grass-fed." Studies show that grass-fed beef can be 30 to 75 per cent lower in fat than grain-fed. Grass-fed is also reported to have higher levels of beneficial Omega-3 fats, up to five times more antioxidants, and slightly higher protein, with some studies also indicating lower cholesterol. So, for consumers, choosing between local and imported beef will mostly come down to personal preference rather than health concerns. Dr Mantzioris says while the differences aren't major, grass-fed beef is the best option. "So if we combine all of those different components of the beef that we've looked at, overall grass fed beef, which is what we have in Australia, is the healthier option." But what about Australian farmers? When Australia lifted the ban, Donald Trump wrote on social media that the US was now going to sell 'so much beef' to Australia. Australia is the second largest exporter of beef products in the world. And while Australians are some of the highest per capita consumers of beef products, our relatively small population means we have a lot left to export. Mark Thomas says he isn't too worried about competing with U-S products. "Well, I suppose, from a from a cattle perspective's point of view, our only concern would be if we thought that US beef was going to compete with our own product here in Australia, and I don't believe that that is going to do so based on the price of cattle in the US over a longer period of time and considering their cattle numbers compared to what we have here in Australia." In fact, US cattle stocks have been in decline for two decades. The United States is the second largest importer of beef globally and cattle stocks in the country are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. The US Department of Agriculture says beef prices have increased by 8 per cent since the start of 2025, with one kilogram of beef costing around AU$30.. Mark Thomas says with beef shortages in the United States, it's unlikely the Australian market is going to be flooded with imported US beef. "Well, currently, there's a lot of Australian beef going into the US market, purely because they need it. At the moment, cattle prices in the US are just quoting a heavy steer close to $5 whereas that same animal in Australia is only going for $2.50 so how can they purchase an animal for $5 a kilo? Process it, send it to the other side of the world and expect to compete with the product that we have here?" While beef prices have been increasing in the United States, Australian beef exports broke an all-time monthly record in June. And the biggest buyer was, that's right, the United States. In New York, Stew Leonard Junior is the CEO of a grocery chain. He says he gets grass-fed beef from Australia and plans on splitting the tariff cost with his supplier. "We are a huge meat purchaser, and it's mainly the US. So you know, there could be some, that's one of our trains going by up there, okay, for the kids right there, they love that. But one of the things we don't get a lot from Australia, the only thing we do get is our grass-fed beef. They sell beautiful grass- fed beef in Australia. That's being tariffed a little bit. We're splitting that tariff with our supplier. We don't really buy beef from Canada or Mexico or Argentina."
