COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Under various Federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the cost of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances disposed, stored, generated, released, manufactured or discharged from, on, at, under, or in a property. As such, the Company may be potentially liable for costs associated with any potential environmental remediation at any of its formerly or currently owned properties. The Company conducts Phase I environmental reviews with respect to properties it acquires. These reviews include an investigation for the presence of asbestos, underground storage tanks and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Although such reviews are intended to evaluate the environmental condition of the subject property as well as surrounding properties, there can be no assurance that the review conducted by the Company will be adequate to identify environmental or other problems that may exist. Where a Phase II assessment is so recommended, a Phase II assessment is conducted to further determine the extent of possible environmental contamination. In all instances where a Phase I or II assessment has resulted in specific recommendations for remedial actions, the Company has either taken or scheduled the recommended remedial action. To mitigate unknown risks, the Company has obtained environmental insurance for most of its properties, which covers only unknown environmental risks. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all Federal, state and local ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances. Management is not aware of any environmental liability that it believes would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Management is unaware of any instances in which the Company would incur significant environmental costs if any or all properties were sold, disposed of or abandoned. However, there can be no assurance that any such non-compliance, liability, claim or expenditure will not arise in the future. The Company is involved in various matters of litigation arising in the normal course of business. While the Company is unable to predict with certainty the amounts involved, the Company’s management and counsel are of the opinion that, when such litigation is resolved, the Company’s resulting liability, if any, will not have a significant effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company's policy is to accrue legal expenses as they are incurred. During August 2009, the Company terminated the employment of a former Senior Vice President (the "Former Employee") for engaging in conduct that materially violated the Company's employee handbook. The Company determined that the behavior fell within the definition of "cause" in his severance agreement with us and therefore did not pay him anything thereunder. The Former Employee brought a lawsuit against the Company in New York State Supreme Court (the "Court"), in the amount of $0.9 million alleging breach of the severance agreement. On August 7, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company, as defendant, and against plaintiff, the Former Employee, finding that his conduct in fact and law, constituted "cause" under his severance agreement. The Court rendered two decisions, one granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment and a second denying the Former Employee's motion to dismiss the Company’s answer as an abuse of judicial discretion. The Former Employee has only appealed the latter decision. The Company believes that it will be successful on appeal. During July 2013, a lawsuit was brought against the Company relating to the 2011 flood at Mark Plaza by Kmart Corporation in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, State of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleged a breach of contract and negligence relating to landlord responsibility to prevent damage to tenant as a result of the flood and for the subsequent damage to tenant's property, including lost profits. The tenant was seeking judgment in excess of $9.0 million. During the third quarter of 2015, the case was settled for $1.1 million. Of this amount, $0.8 million was paid by insurance and the Company paid $0.3 million. During December 2013, in connection with Fund II’s City Point Project, Albee Development LLC ("Albee") and a non-affiliated construction manager were served with a Summons With Notice as well as a Demand for Arbitration by Casino Development Group, Inc. ("Casino"), the former contractor responsible for the excavation and concrete work at the City Point Project. Albee terminated the contract with Casino for cause prior to completion of the contract. Casino was seeking approximately $7.4 million. During the second quarter of 2015, the case was settled for $3.3 million, of which the Operating Partnership's share was $0.6 million.

Commitments and Contingencies

Under various Federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the cost of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances disposed, stored, generated, released, manufactured or discharged from, on, at, under, or in a property. As such, the Company may be potentially liable for costs associated with any potential environmental remediation at any of its formerly or currently owned properties.

The Company conducts Phase I environmental reviews with respect to properties it acquires. These reviews include an investigation for the presence of asbestos, underground storage tanks and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Although such reviews are intended to evaluate the environmental condition of the subject property as well as surrounding properties, there can be no assurance that the review conducted by the Company will be adequate to identify environmental or other problems that may exist. Where a Phase II assessment is so recommended, a Phase II assessment is conducted to further determine the extent of possible environmental contamination. In all instances where a Phase I or II assessment has resulted in specific recommendations for remedial actions, the Company has either taken or scheduled the recommended remedial action. To mitigate unknown risks, the Company has obtained environmental insurance for most of its properties, which covers only unknown environmental risks.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all Federal, state and local ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances. Management is not aware of any environmental liability that it believes would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Management is unaware of any instances in which the Company would incur significant environmental costs if any or all properties were sold, disposed of or abandoned. However, there can be no assurance that any such non-compliance, liability, claim or expenditure will not arise in the future.

The Company is involved in various matters of litigation arising in the normal course of business. While the Company is unable to predict with certainty the amounts involved, the Company’s management and counsel are of the opinion that, when such litigation is resolved, the Company’s resulting liability, if any, will not have a significant effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company's policy is to accrue legal expenses as they are incurred.

During August 2009, the Company terminated the employment of a former Senior Vice President (the "Former Employee") for engaging in conduct that materially violated the Company's employee handbook. The Company determined that the behavior fell within the definition of "cause" in his severance agreement with us and therefore did not pay him anything thereunder. The Former Employee brought a lawsuit against the Company in New York State Supreme Court (the "Court"), in the amount of $0.9 million alleging breach of the severance agreement. On August 7, 2014, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company, as defendant, and against plaintiff, the Former Employee, finding that his conduct in fact and law, constituted "cause" under his severance agreement. The Court rendered two decisions, one granting the Company’s motion for summary judgment and a second denying the Former Employee's motion to dismiss the Company’s answer as an abuse of judicial discretion. The Former Employee has only appealed the latter decision. The Company believes that it will be successful on appeal.

During July 2013, a lawsuit was brought against the Company relating to the 2011 flood at Mark Plaza by Kmart Corporation in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, State of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleged a breach of contract and negligence relating to landlord responsibility to prevent damage to tenant as a result of the flood and for the subsequent damage to tenant's property, including lost profits. The tenant was seeking judgment in excess of $9.0 million. During the third quarter of 2015, the case was settled for $1.1 million. Of this amount, $0.8 million was paid by insurance and the Company paid $0.3 million.

During December 2013, in connection with Fund II’s City Point Project, Albee Development LLC ("Albee") and a non-affiliated construction manager were served with a Summons With Notice as well as a Demand for Arbitration by Casino Development Group, Inc. ("Casino"), the former contractor responsible for the excavation and concrete work at the City Point Project. Albee terminated the contract with Casino for cause prior to completion of the contract. Casino was seeking approximately $7.4 million. During the second quarter of 2015, the case was settled for $3.3 million, of which the Operating Partnership's share was $0.6 million.