Local Bloomingdale’s Sued Over Unpaid Rent, Report Says

The Bloomingdale’s Outlet on 72nd Street and Broadway was sued by its landlord over unpaid rent, according to an article in The Real Deal.

The famed retailer began skipping rent payments in April and now owes nearly $2.5 million on its outlet at 2085 Broadway, the landlord alleges in a lawsuit. The lease for the store states Bloomingdale’s will pay the Stahl Organization $437,500 of fixed rent plus a percentage sales.

Whether the suit is successful may depend on whether a judge allows Bloomingdale’s to declare force majeure — a term that basically means that the company couldn’t pay because of an act outside of its control.

Retailers throughout the neighborhood are struggling amid the pandemic, with several store closures in the past few months.

Bloomingdale’s didn’t comment about the suit to The Real Deal.

NEWS | 14 comments | permalink
    1. ben says:

      Wouldn’t surprise me if they try to get out of that lease. Every major retailer not named Target is trying to shrink their footprint in the city rn.

    2. Paul says:

      Anyone think tenants are lining up for this space, or that the owner is better off losing Bloomingdale’s?

      It’s a whole new world. Almost every “market rate” rental agreement is now a bad deal for the tenant and needs a reset. And you can’t get one if you pay.
      You have to ask for a reduction and if your landlord says no, withhold the rent, and negotiate when the landlord takes action.
      Worst case is you pay what you owed anyway.

      • Mark R says:

        IANAL, but you’re likely to get stuck paying what you owe plus plaintiff’s attorneys fees if the situation were to progress as far as actual legal action.

        • Sarah says:

          Nah. In the U.S., under most circumstances parties bear their own litigation costs.

          • Liz says:

            That’s true unless there’s a contract that calls for the payment of legal fees and a commercial lease could have such a provision.

            • Paul says:

              It’s a good guess that the executives who decided to withhold the rent checked all this out first.
              With their lawyers.

    3. Tam says:

      it’s RIDICULOUS the rent is that high. No wonder so many businesses were giving up on NYC even before this. I’m not THAT liberal but we really need some kind of rent restrictions. That space isn’t even that big!

    4. charles hoffman says:

      isn’t it a corporate lease?
      as long as Macy’s isn’t in bankruptcy, why can’t the sue for and collect their rent

    5. B.B. says:

      Every other commercial tenant and their mother are attempting to have courts declare force majeure to get them out of paying rent. Thus far success has been limited to nil.


    6. 10023 says:

      I love having Bloomies outlet in the nabe, hope it doesn’t close 🙁

    7. Retired banker says:

      Shame on you Stahl Co.! The Stahl estate can absolutely afford to carry Bloomie’s rent for a while longer and help keep business alive in the neighborhood.

    8. charles hoffman says:

      this is small potatoes. Bloomies is part of the biggest dept store chain which first has to make peace with the majors like simon property, Macerich, and other mall operators.

      As to whether it will wind up in court with the 72 st owner, a whole year of positioning will precede any decision.

    9. Esther says:

      Sigh. I remember when it used to be a record store, I’d go in and discover Ute lemper, Arvo part,