Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. *Commitments and Contingencies* From time to time, the Company has been, is or may in the future be a defendant in various legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Reis has purchased insurance with respect to construction defect and completed operations at its past real estate projects. Reis has, from time to time, been exposed to various claims associated with the development, construction and sale of condominium units, single family homes or lots. Claims related to dissatisfaction by homeowners and homeowners associations with the construction of condominiums, homes and amenities by us and/or our developer partners in any condominium or subdivision development, or other matters, may result in litigation costs, remediation costs, warranty expenses or settlement costs which could be material to the Company’s reportable discontinued operating income (loss), or its consolidated financial position or cash flows. It would not have any effect on the Company’s income from continuing operations. Reis, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries (GP LLC and Wellsford Park Highlands Corp. (“WPHC”)) were the subject of a suit brought by the homeowners association at the Company’s former 259-unit Gold Peak condominium project outside of Denver, Colorado. This suit was filed in District Court in Douglas County, Colorado on October 19, 2010, seeking monetary damages (not quantified at the time) relating to design and construction defects at the Gold Peak project. Tri-Star, the construction manager/general contractor for the project (not affiliated with Reis) and two former senior officers of Reis, Inc. (Jeffrey H. Lynford, who was also previously a director of the Company, and David M. Strong) were also named as defendants in the suit. In October 2011, experts for the plaintiff delivered a report alleging a cost to repair of approximately $19,000,000. Trial commenced on February 21, 2012 and a jury rendered its verdict on March 13, 2012 finding Reis, GP LLC and Tri-Star jointly and severally liable for an aggregate of $18,200,000, plus other costs of approximately $756,000. In connection with the development of Gold Peak, the Company purchased a commercial general liability “WRAP” insurance policy from a predecessor of ACE Westchester (“ACE”) covering the Company (including its subsidiaries) and its former officers, Tri-Star and Tri-Star’s subcontractors. The Company, upon advice of counsel and based on a reading of the policy, has taken the position that a total of $9,000,000 (and possibly $12,000,000) of coverage is available for this claim. ACE has taken the position that only $3,000,000 of coverage (including defense costs) was provided. The Company has filed suit against ACE, alleging failure to cover this claim, bad faith and other related causes of action. In particular, the Gold Peak litigation could have been settled for $12,000,000 or less prior to the trial. The Company takes the position that ACE is liable for all damages stemming from this failure to engage and settle. Additionally, the Company has added claims against multiple additional insurance companies under policies maintained by the Company, including Reis’s directors’ and officers’ insurance policy, and against Reis’s former insurance broker. The Company has also brought separate claims against Tri-Star, the subcontractors, the architect and a third party inspector engaged at Gold Peak, relating to those parties’ actions on the project, and is considering other recovery actions. As of December 31, 2011, based on the best available information at that time, the Company recorded a charge of approximately $4,460,000 in discontinued operations, representing the low end of the Company’s expected range of net exposure. This amount reflected an aggregate minimum liability of approximately $7,740,000, less the then minimum expected insurance recovery of $3,000,000 and other previously reserved amounts. At March 31, 2012, as a result of the verdict, the Company recorded an additional charge of $14,216,000 in discontinued operations in the first quarter of 2012, to bring the Company’s liability up to the $18,200,000 judgment, plus other costs of approximately $756,000. As of March 31, 2012, the Company, in accordance with the applicable accounting literature, could no longer conclude that $3,000,000 of insurance was probable of being recovered. These charges were reflected in discontinued operations and negatively impacted consolidated net income (loss), but did not impact income from continuing operations. On June 20, 2012, following denial of all of the defendants’ post-trial motions, Reis reached a settlement with the plaintiff, providing for a total payment by Reis of $17,000,000. Of this amount, $5,000,000 was paid on August 3, 2012 and the remaining $12,000,000 was paid on October 15, 2012, in accordance with the settlement terms. In reaching the decision to settle, Reis’s management and Board considered, among other factors: (1) the amount of the settlement versus the potential for an ultimately greater judgment after appeal, including additional costs and post-judgment interest; (2) the benefits of the clarity of settling the case at this time versus continuing uncertainty; and (3) the strong cash flow generation of Reis Services’s core business. As a result of the settlement, in the second quarter of 2012 the Company reversed $1,956,000 of the previously recorded charge. In December 2012, the Company recovered $712,500, which offset a portion of the previously recorded charge, resulting in the net litigation charge for the year ended December 31, 2012 of approximately $11,547,000. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, the Company recovered $80,000. Reis continues to consider its options with respect to contribution or other actions against potentially responsible third parties and/or co-defendants in the lawsuit, and will pursue all reasonable efforts to mitigate the effects of this settlement. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in these additional recovery efforts. The Company is not a party to any other litigation that could reasonably be foreseen to be material to the Company.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

11. Commitments and Contingencies

From time to time, the Company has been, is or may in the future be a defendant in various legal actions arising in the normal course of business. The Company records a provision for a liability when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.

Reis has purchased insurance with respect to construction defect and completed operations at its past real estate projects. Reis has, from time to time, been exposed to various claims associated with the development, construction and sale of condominium units, single family homes or lots. Claims related to dissatisfaction by homeowners and homeowners associations with the construction of condominiums, homes and amenities by us and/or our developer partners in any condominium or subdivision development, or other matters, may result in litigation costs, remediation costs, warranty expenses or settlement costs which could be material to the Company’s reportable discontinued operating income (loss), or its consolidated financial position or cash flows. It would not have any effect on the Company’s income from continuing operations.

Reis, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries (GP LLC and Wellsford Park Highlands Corp. (“WPHC”)) were the subject of a suit brought by the homeowners association at the Company’s former 259-unit Gold Peak condominium project outside of Denver, Colorado. This suit was filed in District Court in Douglas County, Colorado on October 19, 2010, seeking monetary damages (not quantified at the time) relating to design and construction defects at the Gold Peak project. Tri-Star, the construction manager/general contractor for the project (not affiliated with Reis) and two former senior officers of Reis, Inc. (Jeffrey H. Lynford, who was also previously a director of the Company, and David M. Strong) were also named as defendants in the suit. In October 2011, experts for the plaintiff delivered a report alleging a cost to repair of approximately $19,000,000. Trial commenced on February 21, 2012 and a jury rendered its verdict on March 13, 2012 finding Reis, GP LLC and Tri-Star jointly and severally liable for an aggregate of $18,200,000, plus other costs of approximately $756,000.

In connection with the development of Gold Peak, the Company purchased a commercial general liability “WRAP” insurance policy from a predecessor of ACE Westchester (“ACE”) covering the Company (including its subsidiaries) and its former officers, Tri-Star and Tri-Star’s subcontractors. The Company, upon advice of counsel and based on a reading of the policy, has taken the position that a total of $9,000,000 (and possibly $12,000,000) of coverage is available for this claim. ACE has taken the position that only $3,000,000 of coverage (including defense costs) was provided. The Company has filed suit against ACE, alleging failure to cover this claim, bad faith and other related causes of action. In particular, the Gold Peak litigation could have been settled for $12,000,000 or less prior to the trial. The Company takes the position that ACE is liable for all damages stemming from this failure to engage and settle. Additionally, the Company has added claims against multiple additional insurance companies under policies maintained by the Company, including Reis’s directors’ and officers’ insurance policy, and against Reis’s former insurance broker. The Company has also brought separate claims against Tri-Star, the subcontractors, the architect and a third party inspector engaged at Gold Peak, relating to those parties’ actions on the project, and is considering other recovery actions.

As of December 31, 2011, based on the best available information at that time, the Company recorded a charge of approximately $4,460,000 in discontinued operations, representing the low end of the Company’s expected range of net exposure. This amount reflected an aggregate minimum liability of approximately $7,740,000, less the then minimum expected insurance recovery of $3,000,000 and other previously reserved amounts. At March 31, 2012, as a result of the verdict, the Company recorded an additional charge of $14,216,000 in discontinued operations in the first quarter of 2012, to bring the Company’s liability up to the $18,200,000 judgment, plus other costs of approximately $756,000. As of March 31, 2012, the Company, in accordance with the applicable accounting literature, could no longer conclude that $3,000,000 of insurance was probable of being recovered. These charges were reflected in discontinued operations and negatively impacted consolidated net income (loss), but did not impact income from continuing operations.

On June 20, 2012, following denial of all of the defendants’ post-trial motions, Reis reached a settlement with the plaintiff, providing for a total payment by Reis of $17,000,000. Of this amount, $5,000,000 was paid on August 3, 2012 and the remaining $12,000,000 was paid on October 15, 2012, in accordance with the settlement terms. In reaching the decision to settle, Reis’s management and Board considered, among other factors: (1) the amount of the settlement versus the potential for an ultimately greater judgment after appeal, including additional costs and post-judgment interest; (2) the benefits of the clarity of settling the case at this time versus continuing uncertainty; and (3) the strong cash flow generation of Reis Services’s core business. As a result of the settlement, in the second quarter of 2012 the Company reversed $1,956,000 of the previously recorded charge. In December 2012, the Company recovered $712,500, which offset a portion of the previously recorded charge, resulting in the net litigation charge for the year ended December 31, 2012 of approximately $11,547,000. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2013, the Company recovered $80,000.

Reis continues to consider its options with respect to contribution or other actions against potentially responsible third parties and/or co-defendants in the lawsuit, and will pursue all reasonable efforts to mitigate the effects of this settlement. There is no assurance that the Company will be successful in these additional recovery efforts.

The Company is not a party to any other litigation that could reasonably be foreseen to be material to the Company.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details