Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]

10.       COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Insurance

We maintain general liability insurance with limits of $300,000,000 per occurrence and all-risk property and rental value insurance coverage with limits of $1.7 billion per occurrence, including coverage for terrorist acts, with sub-limits for certain perils such as floods and earthquakes on each of our properties.

Fifty Ninth Street Insurance Company, LLC (“FNSIC”), our wholly owned consolidated subsidiary, acts as a direct insurer for coverage for acts of terrorism, including nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological (“NBCR”) acts, as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (“TRIPRA”).  Coverage for acts of terrorism (including NBCR acts) is up to $1.7 billion per occurrence.  Coverage for acts of terrorism (excluding NBCR acts) is fully reinsured by third party insurance companies with no exposure to FNSIC.  For NBCR acts, FNSIC is responsible for a $275,000 deductible and 15% of the balance of a covered loss and the Federal government is responsible for the remaining 85% of a covered loss.  We are ultimately responsible for any loss borne by FNSIC.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain similar levels of insurance coverage in the future in amounts and on terms that are commercially reasonable. We are responsible for deductibles and losses in excess of our insurance coverage, which could be material.

Our mortgage loans are non-recourse to us, except for $75,000,000 of the $320,000,000 mortgage on our 731 Lexington Avenue property, in the event of a substantial casualty, as defined. Our mortgage loans contain customary covenants requiring us to maintain insurance. If lenders insist on greater coverage than we are able to obtain, it could adversely affect our ability to finance our properties.

Flushing Property

In 2002 Flushing Expo, Inc. (“Expo”) agreed to purchase the stock of the entity which owns the Flushing property from us (“Purchase of the Property”) and gave us a non-refundable deposit of $1,875,000. Pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, we settled the action Expo brought against us regarding the Purchase of the Property and in June 2011, deposited the settlement amount with the Court, in exchange for which we received a stipulation of discontinuance, with prejudice, as well as general releases. In November 2011, Expo filed another action, this time against our tenant at the Flushing property asserting, among other things, that such tenant interfered with Expo's Purchase of the Property from us and sought $50,000,000 in damages from our tenant, who sought indemnification from us for such amount. In August 2012, the Court entered judgment denying Expo's claim for damages.Expo filed a motion to re-argue the decision, which the Court denied on December 7, 2012. Expo has appealed the Court's original decision.We believe, after consultation with counsel, that the amount or range of reasonably possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated.

Paramus

In 2001, we leased 30.3 acres of land located in Paramus, New Jersey to IKEA Property, Inc. The lease has a 40-year term with a purchase option in 2021 for $75,000,000. The property is encumbered by a $68,000,000 interest-only mortgage loan with a fixed rate of 2.90%, which matures in October 2018. The annual triple-net rent is the sum of $700,000 plus the amount of debt service on the mortgage loan. If the purchase option is exercised, we will receive net cash proceeds of approximately $7,000,000 and recognize a gain on sale of land of approximately $60,000,000. If the purchase option is not exercised, the triple-net rent for the last 20 years would include debt service sufficient to fully amortize $68,000,000 over the remaining 20-year lease term.

Letters of Credit

Approximately $4,058,000 of standby letters of credit were issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2012.

Other

There are various legal actions against us in the ordinary course of business. In our opinion, the outcome of such matters will not have a material effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.