COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Under various Federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the cost of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances disposed, stored, generated, released, manufactured or discharged from, on, at, under, or in a property. As such, the Company may be potentially liable for costs associated with any potential environmental remediation at any of its formerly or currently owned properties. The Company conducts Phase I environmental reviews with respect to properties it acquires. These reviews include an investigation for the presence of asbestos, underground storage tanks and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Although such reviews are intended to evaluate the environmental condition of the subject property as well as surrounding properties, there can be no assurance that the review conducted by the Company will be adequate to identify environmental or other problems that may exist. Where a Phase II assessment is so recommended, a Phase II assessment is conducted to further determine the extent of possible environmental contamination. In all instances where a Phase I or II assessment has resulted in specific recommendations for remedial actions, the Company has either taken or scheduled the recommended remedial action. To mitigate unknown risks, the Company has obtained environmental insurance for most of its properties, which covers only unknown environmental risks. The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all Federal, state and local ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances. Management is not aware of any environmental liability that it believes would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Management is unaware of any instances in which the Company would incur significant environmental costs if any or all properties were sold, disposed of or abandoned. However, there can be no assurance that any such non-compliance, liability, claim or expenditure will not arise in the future. The Company is involved in various matters of litigation arising in the normal course of business. While the Company is unable to predict with certainty the amounts involved, the Company’s management and counsel are of the opinion that, when such litigation is resolved, the Company’s resulting liability, if any, will not have a significant effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company's policy is to accrue legal expenses as they are incurred. ACADIA REALTY TRUST AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 22. Commitments and Contingencies (continued) In September 2008, the Company, certain of its subsidiaries, and other unrelated entities (the “Investor Consortium”) were named as defendants in an adversary proceeding brought by Mervyns LLC (“Mervyns”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The action involved five claims alleging fraudulent transfers in which Mervyns was nominally seeking approximately $1.175 billion in damages from the Investor Consortium, although the actual claims made by the administrator and the unsecured creditors were substantially less. The first claim contended that, at the time of the sale of Mervyns by Target Corporation ("Target") to the Investor Consortium, a transfer of assets was made in an effort to defraud creditors. The Company believed that this aspect of the case is without merit. The remaining four claims related to transfers of assets of Mervyns at various times after the sale by Target. The Company believed that there were substantial defenses to these claims. During the third quarter of 2012, the parties to this litigation arrived at an agreement to settle the claim. The settlement was approved by the bankruptcy court and provided for a payment of $166.0 million. Based on the defendants' agreement, the net cost of the settlement to the Investor Consortium amounted to approximately $149.0 million. After applying cash on hand at the investee level, Mervyns I and Mervyns II's combined contribution to this settlement was approximately $1.0 million. In addition, the Company reduced its carrying value of these investments from $6.3 million to its fair value of $5.3 million. In total, this resulted in a charge of $2.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2012, of which the Operating Partnership's share, net of income taxes, was $0.2 million. During August 2009, the Company terminated the employment of a former Senior Vice President (the “Former Employee”) for engaging in conduct that fell within the definition of “cause” in his severance agreement with the Company. Had the Former Employee not been terminated for “cause,” he would have been eligible to receive approximately $0.9 million under the severance agreement. Because the Company terminated him for “cause,” it did not pay the Former Employee any severance benefits under the agreement. The Former Employee has brought a lawsuit against the Company in New York State Supreme Court, alleging breach of the severance agreement. The suit is in the pre-trial discovery stage. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the suit.

Commitments and Contingencies

Under various Federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the cost of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances disposed, stored, generated, released, manufactured or discharged from, on, at, under, or in a property. As such, the Company may be potentially liable for costs associated with any potential environmental remediation at any of its formerly or currently owned properties.

The Company conducts Phase I environmental reviews with respect to properties it acquires. These reviews include an investigation for the presence of asbestos, underground storage tanks and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Although such reviews are intended to evaluate the environmental condition of the subject property as well as surrounding properties, there can be no assurance that the review conducted by the Company will be adequate to identify environmental or other problems that may exist. Where a Phase II assessment is so recommended, a Phase II assessment is conducted to further determine the extent of possible environmental contamination. In all instances where a Phase I or II assessment has resulted in specific recommendations for remedial actions, the Company has either taken or scheduled the recommended remedial action. To mitigate unknown risks, the Company has obtained environmental insurance for most of its properties, which covers only unknown environmental risks.

The Company believes that it is in compliance in all material respects with all Federal, state and local ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances. Management is not aware of any environmental liability that it believes would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Management is unaware of any instances in which the Company would incur significant environmental costs if any or all properties were sold, disposed of or abandoned. However, there can be no assurance that any such non-compliance, liability, claim or expenditure will not arise in the future.

The Company is involved in various matters of litigation arising in the normal course of business. While the Company is unable to predict with certainty the amounts involved, the Company’s management and counsel are of the opinion that, when such litigation is resolved, the Company’s resulting liability, if any, will not have a significant effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. The Company's policy is to accrue legal expenses as they are incurred.

ACADIA REALTY TRUST AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

22. Commitments and Contingencies (continued)

In September 2008, the Company, certain of its subsidiaries, and other unrelated entities (the “Investor Consortium”) were named as defendants in an adversary proceeding brought by Mervyns LLC (“Mervyns”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The action involved five claims alleging fraudulent transfers in which Mervyns was nominally seeking approximately $1.175 billion in damages from the Investor Consortium, although the actual claims made by the administrator and the unsecured creditors were substantially less. The first claim contended that, at the time of the sale of Mervyns by Target Corporation ("Target") to the Investor Consortium, a transfer of assets was made in an effort to defraud creditors. The Company believed that this aspect of the case is without merit. The remaining four claims related to transfers of assets of Mervyns at various times after the sale by Target. The Company believed that there were substantial defenses to these claims.

During the third quarter of 2012, the parties to this litigation arrived at an agreement to settle the claim. The settlement was approved by the bankruptcy court and provided for a payment of $166.0 million. Based on the defendants' agreement, the net cost of the settlement to the Investor Consortium amounted to approximately $149.0 million. After applying cash on hand at the investee level, Mervyns I and Mervyns II's combined contribution to this settlement was approximately $1.0 million. In addition, the Company reduced its carrying value of these investments from $6.3 million to its fair value of $5.3 million. In total, this resulted in a charge of $2.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2012, of which the Operating Partnership's share, net of income taxes, was $0.2 million.

During August 2009, the Company terminated the employment of a former Senior Vice President (the “Former Employee”) for engaging in conduct that fell within the definition of “cause” in his severance agreement with the Company. Had the Former Employee not been terminated for “cause,” he would have been eligible to receive approximately $0.9 million under the severance agreement. Because the Company terminated him for “cause,” it did not pay the Former Employee any severance benefits under the agreement. The Former Employee has brought a lawsuit against the Company in New York State Supreme Court, alleging breach of the severance agreement. The suit is in the pre-trial discovery stage. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the suit.