A Queens Civil Court judge has left a towering $375,000 penalty firmly in place against the owners and manager of a Ridgewood apartment building, shutting down their attempt to walk back a deal tied to long-running code and tenant-harassment claims. The ruling stems from a May 12, 2021 consent agreement that required a $37,500 payment and explicitly provided that if that money did not show up, the obligation would balloon into a $375,000 judgment. The case focuses on 1708 Summerfield Street, a building where tenants and advocates have complained for years about delayed repairs and other problems. The judge's June decision keeps the city’s enforcement effort alive while the defendants continue to file post-judgment papers in an effort to blunt the fallout.
Judge Denies Motions To Vacate Consent Order
In a written opinion, the Queens Civil Court rejected separate attempts by registered managing agent Alex Kohn and owner David Shorenstein to undo both the consent order and the December 12, 2023 judgment. The court found that the terms of the settlement, along with the public filings, gave the city’s lawyers solid grounds to rely on counsel’s appearance in the case. The judge walked through the consent order’s clear default clause, which turned the $37,500 settlement into a $375,000 judgment when payment was not made, and concluded that the respondents had not shown any basis such as fraud or mistake that would justify tossing the deal. The court also granted the city’s request to supplement the record while sorting out related battles over post-judgment discovery. According to NYCourts.
Tenants Say Repairs Lagged As Case Moved Forward
Residents at the Ridgewood building told reporters that even as the city pressed its civil case, they were still waiting on basic fixes and receiving unnerving notices. One tenant described a broken door that sat unfixed for months, while another recalled spotting a "bankruptcy sale" sign posted outside the property. Those street-level accounts, collected alongside HPD’s formal enforcement push, add an on-the-ground backdrop to the agency’s filings. The tenant interviews and those details were reported by amNewYork.
History Of Complaints At The Address
Silvershore and 1708 Summerfield have not exactly been strangers to controversy. Over roughly the past decade, the building has drawn tenant protests and a steady stream of HPD complaints, with local coverage chronicling rallies, Section 8 disputes and other neighborhood pushback that point to a longer-running clash between residents and ownership. Tenant groups have accused the owners of letting repairs slide and using tactics that squeeze long-term tenants, which has periodically pulled in city enforcement agencies. Earlier coverage of those protests and voucher disputes is detailed by QNS.
Legal Next Steps For The Parties
The court underscored that side skirmishes, including a malpractice lawsuit Shorenstein filed against the attorney who signed the consent order, do not automatically wipe out HPD’s settlement or the resulting judgment. The opinion notes that the lawyer who entered into the consent order later moved in March 2025 to be relieved as counsel, yet the judge said those developments do not erase what the city secured. With the motions to vacate denied, HPD’s civil penalty remains fully enforceable, and post-judgment discovery and collection efforts can move forward while the defendants weigh appeals or other legal options. According to NYCourts.
For tenants and housing advocates, the decision is being read as a clear win for city enforcement and a pointed reminder that when you sign a consent order with New York City, failing to pay can get very expensive very fast. HPD and representatives for the building did not issue fresh public statements immediately after the ruling, and defense lawyers may still press additional motions or appeals in the weeks ahead. We will continue to track the docket and update coverage if the status of the judgment changes.
