Troubles continue for beleaguered Wall Street property owner Ganga Duleep: A finance company is foreclosing on her buildings at 45 Wall St. and 27-29 Wall St.
Robert Genuario ruled in February in favor of the foreclosure, filed by Capital For Change, Inc., (C4C), a not-for-profit corporation, in March 2022. Duleep has appealed.
Duleep owes more than $4.6 million, and used 27-29 Wall St. as cross collateral, the complaint and other documents state. A recent document contains an appraisal of the buildings; 45 Wall St. is worth $2 million in fair market value and 27 Wall St. is worth $440,000.
Public attention to 45 Wall St. began nearly 14 years ago, when it was heavily damaged in a devastating fire. It became a neighborhood eyesore, drawing complaints. Duleep blamed noteholder TD Bank for being unwilling to release the funds to make repairs.
In 2017, the City threatened Duleep and TD Bank with a possible fine of $100 a day under the commercial blight ordinance. Norwalk Chief Building Official Bill Ireland said that C4C had gotten involved as a go-between, working with TD Bank and Duleep’s insurer to resolve issues impeding the release of insurance proceeds for the project.
Renovations proceeded, including rebuilding the back wall. Costs escalated, and Duleep, with the legal entity Wall Street Associates, committed to more loans, C4C states in its complaint. One expense included remediation of damage caused by the building being open to the weather.
Tax credits from the State Historic Preservation Office, worth about $800,000, were part of the funding mix. C4C states that Duleep “failed” to collect them. In May 2021, C4C informed Duleep that her defaults “included nonpayment but also disrepair as to both properties at issue, failure to complete construction of the Project, and failure to pay taxes.”
In February 2022, Duleep sent a handyman to drill through exterior door locks at 45 Wall St. and install new ones, the complaint states. He also collected keys to the 10 apartments.
She also had her handyman put a “For Rent” sign in the window, although “the building lacks a certificate of occupancy, remains under construction, and does not have a functional fire safety system at present,” the complaint states.
Duleep subsequently called Norwalk Police on C4C’s contractor and alleged that he was on the property without permission. The contractor was put in handcuffs and had to explain for two hours as six police cars blocked the street. A police dog was present. He produced a contract to prove his innocence and Duleep admitted to police that she had signed it, but police would not allow the man to collect his tools. He then refused to continue the project until C4C got control of the building.
Duleep has counter sued, alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTP). The lawsuit, filed in November, also charges the builder, the architect, and a design consultant with allegations that include violating CUTPA and tortious interference in a contract.
C4C alleges in a reply brief that Duleep is repeating accusations that were rejected by the court in the foreclosure case.
In the complaint, Duleep said she asked for keys and didn’t get them.
The complaint describes a repeated pattern of C4C having her sign financial documents without providing them in advance or having her lawyer review them.
“With each loan modification, Plaintiff, Capital for Change, would tell affiant that it was needed to finish the project and not to worry, that with the State Historical Society funds and the TD Bank funds would be enough to cover these loans,” the complaint states. This was “done in a manner to deceive and misrepresent and induce the Plaintiffs to incur substantial debt from the rehabilitation and remediation of 41-45 Wall Street.”
Duleep said C4C hired a new architect without consulting her and that plans were developed without her input. The new plans resulted in nine change orders to comply with the State Historical Agency, adding expenses.
The complaint asserts that Duleep would never have assigned her rental and security rights to another unrelated commercial property.
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the countersuit, which are pending. Duleep’s appeal is still pending.
Leave a Reply
You must Register or Login to post a comment.