5 Comments on Spotted On Greenpoint Avenue: Apology

bleibtreu on Thu, 4th Nov 2010 1:45 am


I suppose it’s not a big difference, but as I read that the issue isn’t a lack of a Place of Assembly permit, but that their current Certificate of Occupancy does not allow operation as a Place of Assembly. The COO is where the occupancy limit of 75 comes from, and a Place of Assembly can not operate at that occupancy level.

I have to say, as a longtime customer of Coco66, that I’m pretty disappointed at their failure to openly address this with their clientele. From the beginning of this ordeal they’ve been only focused on deception and spin. That makes no sense, because nightlife customers in NYC are well aware of the fact that the city’s regulations are obstructive to such venues. Just be honest with us and we’ll be on your side, but your failure to honestly address this issue with your customers is, sorry to say, making me less likely to regularly patronize the place even assuming they eventually do straighten this all out.

missheather on Thu, 4th Nov 2010 6:47 pm


This establishment being cited for a lack of a Place of Assembly permit— while not written about— is relevant. Or at the very least interesting. Last week I had lunch with a buddy of mine who makes a (handsome) living helping businesses such as Coco66 get compliant with building code/zoning. We discussed Coco66 (and 68) specifically. One of the requirements for a P of A (which sanctions live entertainment and enables the holder to allow more people in said establishment) is having two means of egress in the event of a fire. As the Voice pointed out Coco66 was cited for having a number of occupants far exceeding the number allowed (74) and having insufficient means of egress. In essence, Cocos 66 and 68 were shut down because they were operating as if they has a P of A without actually meeting the legal requirements for one. I want you to think about this for a moment: conducting live performances and allowing far more people than they were legally entitled to in a space lacking sufficient fire exits, sprinklers, etc. I for one think this is disgusting. Just as I think their subterfuge (on the one hand) and admission that they were expanding the space (mind you, without permits) both wretchedly comical and cringe-worthy.

In any case (and admission aside) it is pretty obvious they are doing work in there. The fact they have both store fronts’ windows’ covered in black plastic makes this pretty damned obvious. My prognostication is as follows: they will tear down the wall between 66 and 68 (ILLEGALLY) and then try to up their legal occupancy. Probably by combining the C of Os for 66 and 68. I for one hope the Department of Buildings tells them to shove it. Why should they be rewarded for breaking the law— repeatedly— and a disturbing lack of concern for their clientele’s safety? When you get down to it this whole fiasco, unlike what the Voice asserted, is about one thing and one thing only: GREED. They should be ashamed of themselves.

bleibtreu on Fri, 5th Nov 2010 1:43 pm


Actually, if you look at ECB Violation Number 34878276H in the BIS, it looks like the two addresses already share one C of O. “SAID ADDRESS UNDER COFO#30177-6353F WHICH ENCOMPASSES BOTH.”

And after writing that, yes, here it is: http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/B/000/124000/B000124263.PDF

Gotta say, as many times as I’ve been in there I’ve never given a thought to whether there’d be a way out of that back room in an emergency. Or whether there are sprinklers. I guess you just kind of assume that stuff like that is taken care of.

I liked it better when it was just a bar, anyway.

bleibtreu on Fri, 5th Nov 2010 1:46 pm


Should have clicked on more link. Newer CofO issued in 2005, which does allow for an eating and drinking establishment on the first floor:
http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/B/301/776000/301776353.PDF

Which means they were OK until the expansion brought them over the capacity of 75, at which point a Place of Assembly permit is required.

missheather on Fri, 5th Nov 2010 3:50 pm


Very strange: when we poked around the DOB over lunch last week we noticed there were two separate C of O’s: one for 66 and one for 68. Hmm…

In any case, I agree with you that Coco66 was a rather nice bar— when it started out, anyway. As for making the assumption a venue is safe and up-to-code it’d be nice if this kind of thing could be taken for granted (READ: that club owners could be trusted to be concerned about the safety of their patrons). Sadly this is appears not to be the case. Caveat emptor

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.