Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Litigation Except as described below, as of June 30, 2014, we were not involved in any material litigation, nor, to our knowledge, was any material litigation threatened against us or our properties, other than routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business such as disputes with tenants. We believe that the costs and related liabilities, if any, which may result from such actions, will not materially affect our consolidated financial position, operating results or liquidity. In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the "Original Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in certain of the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities) (the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor’s management companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by which it was structured (including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the consolidation. The Original Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Furthermore, an underlying premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the “subject LLCs”) immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities. The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received adequate access to relevant information, including the independent valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits, including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation, that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of the named class representatives intends to support the consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff class. The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs. The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed, after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering, defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and certain investors, in the existing entities who agree to contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment. The settlement further provides for the certification of a class of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class against the defendants and related persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors. The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement. There was no such supplement that plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal. Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions. On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of “fair value” in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors’ assertion that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC’s favor, holding that such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New York Limited Liability Company Law. On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement. On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are investors in all of the existing entities included in the consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can pursue separate claims for monetary damages. They are bound by the settlement agreement regarding equitable relief, so they cannot seek an injunction to halt the consolidation or the Offering. The settlement will not become final until resolution of any appeal. Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on attorneys’ fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0 million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment). The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice of appeal of the court’s April 30, 2013 decision and moved before the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013, these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company, the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to the panel that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling. In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the trial court’s rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013 granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17, 2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6, 2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals are perfected by March 17, 2014. On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court’s ruling to the New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22, 2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was filed on July 11, 2014, and it is awaiting a ruling from the court. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of these proceedings, or, if a motion for leave is granted, the appeal process or any related relief, if such further appeal were successful. If the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were reversed by the Court of Appeals, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief, and the court could order some or all of the relief that the objecting investors have requested, as described above. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were correct, that they will be upheld on any further appeal. On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s rulings in the Original Class Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court’s May 17, 2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys’ fees and costs. Responses to this appeal were filed April 16, 2014, and the appellate court has not yet scheduled oral argument, which we anticipate will be in the fall. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of an appeal. If the court’s decision were reversed by an appellate court, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, including the imposition of monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial court’s decision was correct, and that it will be upheld on appeal. No other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order. In addition, commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have a right to appeal this ruling. We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an appeal is successful and the court were ultimately to rule against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief. In connection with the Offering and formation transactions, we entered into indemnification agreements with our directors, executive officers and chairman emeritus, providing for the indemnification by us for certain liabilities and expenses incurred as a result of actions brought, or threatened to be brought, against them. As a result, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. have defense and indemnity rights from us with respect to the Second Class Actions. Additionally, there is a risk that other third parties will assert claims against us, Malkin Holdings LLC, or any other party entitled to defense and indemnity from us, including, without limitation, claims that Malkin Holdings LLC breached its fiduciary duties to investors in the existing entities or that the consolidation violates the relevant operating agreements, and third parties may commence litigation related to such claims. As a result, we may incur costs associated with defending or settling such litigation or paying any judgment if we lose. Unfunded Capital Expenditures At June 30, 2014, we estimate that we will incur approximately $60.8 million of capital expenditures (including tenant improvements and leasing commissions) on our wholly-owned properties pursuant to existing lease agreements. We expect to fund these capital expenditures with operating cash flow, additional property level mortgage financings, our secured credit facility, and cash on hand. Future property acquisitions may require substantial capital investments for refurbishment and leasing costs. We expect that these financing requirements will be met in a similar fashion. Concentration of Credit Risk Financial instruments that subject us to credit risk consist primarily of cash, restricted cash, tenant and other receivables and deferred rent receivables. Beginning January 1, 2013, non‑interest bearing transaction accounts are no longer insured separately from depositors' other accounts at the same Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") Insured Depository Institution ("IDI"). Instead, non‑interest bearing transaction accounts are added to any of a depositor's other accounts in the applicable ownership category, and the aggregate balance will be insured up to at least the standard maximum deposit insurance amount of $250,000, per depositor, at each separately chartered IDI. At June 30, 2014, we held on deposit at various major financial institutions cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash balances in excess of amounts insured by the FDIC. Asset Retirement Obligations We are required to accrue costs that we are legally obligated to incur on retirement of our properties which result from acquisition, construction, development and/or normal operation of such properties. Retirement includes sale, abandonment or disposal of a property. Under that standard, a conditional asset retirement obligation represents a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be within a company’s control and a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation must be recorded if the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated. Environmental site assessments and investigations have identified asbestos or asbestos-containing building materials in certain of our properties. As of June 30, 2014, management has no plans to remove or alter these properties in a manner that would trigger federal and other applicable regulations for asbestos removal, and accordingly, the obligations to remove the asbestos or asbestos-containing building materials from these properties have indeterminable settlement dates. As such, we are unable to reasonably estimate the fair value of the associated conditional asset retirement obligation. However ongoing asbestos abatement, maintenance programs and other required documentation are carried out as required and related costs are expensed as incurred. Other Environmental Matters Certain of our properties have been inspected for soil contamination due to pollutants, which may have occurred prior to our ownership of these properties or subsequently in connection with its development and/or its use. Required remediation to such properties has been completed and as of June 30, 2014, our management believes that there are no obligations related to environmental remediation other than maintaining the affected sites in conformity with the relevant authority’s mandates and filing the required documents. All such maintenance costs are expensed as incurred. We expect that resolution of the environmental matters relating to the above will not have a material impact on our business, assets, consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. However, we cannot be certain that we have identified all environmental liabilities at our properties, that all necessary remediation actions have been or will be undertaken at our properties or that we will be indemnified, in full or at all, in the event that such environmental liabilities arise. Insurance Coverage We carry insurance coverage on our properties of types and in amounts with deductibles that we believe are in line with coverage customarily obtained by owners of similar properties.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Litigation

Except as described below, as of June 30, 2014, we were not involved in any material litigation, nor, to our knowledge, was any material litigation threatened against us or our properties, other than routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business such as disputes with tenants. We believe that the costs and related liabilities, if any, which may result from such actions, will not materially affect our consolidated financial position, operating results or liquidity.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the "Original Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in certain of the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities) (the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor’s management companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by which it was structured (including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the consolidation. The Original Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Furthermore, an underlying premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the “subject LLCs”) immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received adequate access to relevant information, including the independent valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits, including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation, that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of the named class representatives intends to support the consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff class.

The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.

The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed, after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering, defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and certain investors, in the existing entities who agree to contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment.

The settlement further provides for the certification of a class of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class against the defendants and related persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors. The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement. There was no such supplement that plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was subject to court approval. It is not effective until such court approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal. Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.

On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of “fair value” in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors’ assertion that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC’s favor, holding that such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New York Limited Liability Company Law.

On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement. On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are investors in all of the existing entities included in the consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can pursue separate claims for monetary damages. They are bound by the settlement agreement regarding equitable relief, so they cannot seek an injunction to halt the consolidation or the Offering. The settlement will not become final until resolution of any appeal.

Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on attorneys’ fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0 million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment).

The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice of appeal of the court’s April 30, 2013 decision and moved before the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013, these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company, the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to the panel that will hear the appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the trial court’s rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013 granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17, 2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6, 2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals are perfected by March 17, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court’s ruling to the New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22, 2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was filed on July 11, 2014, and it is awaiting a ruling from the court. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of these proceedings, or, if a motion for leave is granted, the appeal process or any related relief, if such further appeal were successful. If the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were reversed by the Court of Appeals, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief, and the court could order some or all of the relief that the objecting investors have requested, as described above. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial and appeals courts’ decisions were correct, that they will be upheld on any further appeal.

On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s rulings in the Original Class Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court’s May 17, 2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys’ fees and costs. Responses to this appeal were filed April 16, 2014, and the appellate court has not yet scheduled oral argument, which we anticipate will be in the fall. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of an appeal. If the court’s decision were reversed by an appellate court, there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, including the imposition of monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. Although there can be no assurance, we believe that the trial court’s decision was correct, and that it will be upheld on appeal. No other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order.

In addition, commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have a right to appeal this ruling.

We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an appeal is successful and the court were ultimately to rule against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief.

In connection with the Offering and formation transactions, we entered into indemnification agreements with our directors, executive officers and chairman emeritus, providing for the indemnification by us for certain liabilities and expenses incurred as a result of actions brought, or threatened to be brought, against them. As a result, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. have defense and indemnity rights from us with respect to the Second Class Actions.

Additionally, there is a risk that other third parties will assert claims against us, Malkin Holdings LLC, or any other party entitled to defense and indemnity from us, including, without limitation, claims that Malkin Holdings LLC breached its fiduciary duties to investors in the existing entities or that the consolidation violates the relevant operating agreements, and third parties may commence litigation related to such claims. As a result, we may incur costs associated with defending or settling such litigation or paying any judgment if we lose.

Unfunded Capital Expenditures

At June 30, 2014, we estimate that we will incur approximately $60.8 million of capital expenditures (including tenant improvements and leasing commissions) on our wholly-owned properties pursuant to existing lease agreements. We expect to fund these capital expenditures with operating cash flow, additional property level mortgage financings, our secured credit facility, and cash on hand. Future property acquisitions may require substantial capital investments for refurbishment and leasing costs. We expect that these financing requirements will be met in a similar fashion.

Concentration of Credit Risk

Financial instruments that subject us to credit risk consist primarily of cash, restricted cash, tenant and other receivables and deferred rent receivables.

Beginning January 1, 2013, non‑interest bearing transaction accounts are no longer insured separately from depositors' other accounts at the same Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") Insured Depository Institution ("IDI"). Instead, non‑interest bearing transaction accounts are added to any of a depositor's other accounts in the applicable ownership category, and the aggregate balance will be insured up to at least the standard maximum deposit insurance amount of $250,000, per depositor, at each separately chartered IDI. At June 30, 2014, we held on deposit at various major financial institutions cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash balances in excess of amounts insured by the FDIC.

Asset Retirement Obligations

We are required to accrue costs that we are legally obligated to incur on retirement of our properties which result from acquisition, construction, development and/or normal operation of such properties. Retirement includes sale, abandonment or disposal of a property. Under that standard, a conditional asset retirement obligation represents a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be within a company’s control and a liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation must be recorded if the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably estimated. Environmental site assessments and investigations have identified asbestos or asbestos-containing building materials in certain of our properties. As of June 30, 2014, management has no plans to remove or alter these properties in a manner that would trigger federal and other applicable regulations for asbestos removal, and accordingly, the obligations to remove the asbestos or asbestos-containing building materials from these properties have indeterminable settlement dates. As such, we are unable to reasonably estimate the fair value of the associated conditional asset retirement obligation. However ongoing asbestos abatement, maintenance programs and other required documentation are carried out as required and related costs are expensed as incurred.

Other Environmental Matters

Certain of our properties have been inspected for soil contamination due to pollutants, which may have occurred prior to our ownership of these properties or subsequently in connection with its development and/or its use. Required remediation to such properties has been completed and as of June 30, 2014, our management believes that there are no obligations related to environmental remediation other than maintaining the affected sites in conformity with the relevant authority’s mandates and filing the required documents. All such maintenance costs are expensed as incurred. We expect that resolution of the environmental matters relating to the above will not have a material impact on our business, assets, consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. However, we cannot be certain that we have identified all environmental liabilities at our properties, that all necessary remediation actions have been or will be undertaken at our properties or that we will be indemnified, in full or at all, in the event that such environmental liabilities arise.

Insurance Coverage

We carry insurance coverage on our properties of types and in amounts with deductibles that we believe are in line with coverage customarily obtained by owners of similar properties.