Trump loses bid to keep name on NYC condo tower

Adjust Comment Print

A NY building has won a case to strip itself of the Trump name.

The condo board at "Trump Place" has sued the Trump Organization in an attempt to remove Trump's name from the building after residents complained it would damage property values, The Washington Post reports. Now that the court has ruled in the board's favor, the building's 377 condo owners can vote on whether to remove Trump's name. Nor did any company that he controlled or owned a stake in.

"Throughout the world, but especially on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, many persons associate the name "Trump" with negative connotations, and many persons would prefer not to live in a building bearing the albatross-moniker 'Trump Place, '" the condo board wrote in one legal filing. And it granted the condominium owners the continued use of the Trump name for $1.

Lawyers for a company that Trump owned had argued that in addition to the $1, an understood part of the agreement was that the name would remain there "in perpetuity".

Mohamed Salah Named FWA Player of the Year 2018
He wanted to play more minutes, to mature, he wanted to go and we sent him on loan to Fiorentina , and there he started to mature. Egypt's Youth and Sports Minister Khaled Abd Elaziz has been trying to resolve the dispute, talking to all concerned parties.


After Trump's election, 253 of those owners participated in a straw poll that found almost two-thirds of them wanted to remove the name, but a lawyer for a Trump subsidiary sent a letter warning that if the board attempted to do so, Trump would "commence appropriate legal proceedings to not only prevent such unauthorized action, but to also recover the significant amount of damages, costs and attorney's fees".

Why does the condominium want to take Trump's name down?

Since the 2016 election, three of the buildings have removed Trump from their name, according to The Post.

When other buildings have considered removing the name, the Trump Organization has responded with warnings that it would fight the changes with legal action: the implication being that this fight might cost residents money for legal bills.

What did the court rule?

Comments