A Queens court refused to throw out a $375,000 penalty against the landlords of a Queens building that had amassed hundreds of building violations, ranging from routine maintenance issues to full-blown vermin infestations.

Two years after the court issued the six-figure judgment, the two landlords, who are listed as owners of the building through a holding company, disavowed their connection to the attorney who had accepted a settlement for the whopping list of infractions on their behalf. One of the pair, Alex Kohn, claimed that he was merely a low-level employee in the housing management company penalized by the city. 

Last week, the court dismissed both arguments and doubled down on the fines.

In December 2020, the Department of Housing and Preservation sued Kohn and Shorenstein, the owners and managers of the three-story Queens apartment building at 1708 Summerfield St. in Ridgewood, for extensive housing violations and tenant harassment.

A 37-page list of open violations included a mix of persistent maintenance issues — such as failing to properly repair floor tiles, faucets, or water-damaged plaster ceilings, among other, more serious violations.

In multiple instances, the suit alleges, the landlords failed to address “immediately hazardous” conditions such as full-apartment mice and cockroach infestations, and visible mold.

The landlords reached a settlement agreement in May 2021 for a $37,500 penalty. Moreover, the agreement stated that if they failed to pay on time, a massive $375,000 judgment would automatically be entered against them.

Despite the threat of a tenfold increase in their penalty, they missed the deadline to pay a month and a half later, according to court papers.

It took two more years for the court to issue a judgment ordering the landlords to pay the six-figure penalty. In response, the landlords kept fighting, asking the court to throw out the $375,000 settlement and judgment, claiming they were never personally served with the lawsuit and had no familiarity with the lawyer in the case.

In February 2025, HPD responded by seeking sanctions and additional fees against Benjamin Epstein, the attorney who had agreed to the 2021 settlement on behalf of both landlords. 

By March, Epstein withdrew from representing the landlords any longer, citing a mild heart attack he had suffered and a conflict of interest with his clients in a court filing.

However, it became clear that shortly thereafter, the landlords had turned on their former attorney. In April, Shorenstein filed a separate lawsuit against Epstein that charged Epstein with legal malpractice and argued he had no authority to have agreed to HPD’s settlement on the landlord’s behalf.

At the end of 2025, Kohn, now represented by a new attorney, Jordan Hyman, also made the argument that he never retained Epstein as his attorney.

“[Kohn] never communicated with him, never authorized him to appear, and never consented to any settlement—let alone one imposing personal liability in the event of owner nonpayment,” wrote Hyman.

In the same motion, Kohn, who was previously listed by the city’s Public Advocate on a list of the worst landlords, moved to clear the judgment against him, arguing he was merely a low-level employee, not an owner or person in control.

In its recent judgment, the court put a close to both of these lines of argument.

It ruled that the fact that Epstein was representing Silvershore Properties 95 LLC, the property management company that listed Shorenstein as an owner, is enough to bind him to the judgment.

Likewise, the court found that Kohn was also tied to the settlement. Kohn had provided no proof of his employer’s alleged forgery of his signature on the settlement agreement. Shorenstein’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment. Kohn’s attorney declined to comment.

While this litigation was unfolding, Silvershore Properties 95 LLC, the legal entity that owns the building, filed for bankruptcy, according to court papers. 

Meanwhile, the tenants in the building have not noticed much change throughout the saga.

An elderly tenant who amNewYork Law spoke to in front of the building said that he had not encountered any pest issues but he had faced long delays in getting his door fixed.

The man, who declined to give his name, said, suddenly found that the landlords had cleaned up the hallways a few months ago. Somewhere around the same time, he noticed a big sign up front that advertised the building was being offered in a bankruptcy sale. 

He said he hopes to continue living in the building.