Gyrodyne, LLC

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)/ Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) as of the end of the period covered by this report (the “Evaluation Date”). Based on such evaluation, our management concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective, at a reasonable assurance level, as of the Evaluation Date, to ensure that information required to be disclosed in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms and to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management in a manner that allows timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

An evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s procedures and internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2024. In making this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework of 2013 (the “2013 COSO Framework”). Based on that evaluation, the Company’s management concluded that the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of June 30, 2025.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting identified with our evaluation that occurred during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2025, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART–II - OTHER INFORMATION

Putative Class Action Lawsuit

On August 14, 2015, the Company entered a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain related parties. Under the Settlement, Gyrodyne agreed that any sales of its properties would be effected only in arm's-length transactions at prices at or above their appraised values as of 2014.

As of June 30, 2025, the aggregate appraised value of our remaining unsold properties exceeded the respective 2014 aggregate appraised value for such properties. See, “Risk Factors – Stipulation of Settlement prohibits us from selling our remaining properties at prices below the December 2014 appraised values” in the Company’s annual report.

Article 78 Proceeding

On April 26, 2022, the Incorporated Village of Head of the Harbor and certain other parties commenced a special proceeding (the “Article 78 Proceeding”) against the Town of Smithtown and certain other parties, including the Company, seeking to annul the Planning Board’s determinations relating to the Flowerfield Subdivision Application. The Article 78 Proceeding was commenced by the filing of a petition (the “Petition”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, pursuant to Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“Article 78”). Specifically, the Petition seeks to annul the Planning Board’s (i) approval of the Findings Statement, pursuant to the SEQRA, dated September 16, 2021, and adopted by the Planning Board on March 30, 2022, concerning the Flowerfield Subdivision Application, and (ii) preliminary approval on March 30, 2022, of the Flowerfield Subdivision Application. The arguments made in the Petition are substantially similar to those made by opponents of the Flowerfield Subdivision Application during the SEQRA and subdivision process. The Company and the Town of Smithtown are vigorously defending the Planning Board’s determinations against the Petition. In June 2022, Gyrodyne and the Town of Smithtown filed motions to dismiss the Petition. During the third quarter of 2023, the Article 78 Proceeding was re-assigned to a different judge for the second time. On February 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order (the “Order”), denying the Motions in part and granting them in part. Specifically, the Order (i) denied the Motions as to three individual Petitioners and the St. James-Head of the Harbor Neighborhood Preservation Coalition, Inc., (ii) granted the Motions as to the remaining twenty (20) individual Petitioners and the Village of Head of the Harbor, (iii) denied the branch of Gyrodyne’s motion alleging that Petitioners failed to state a claim. On October 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a ruling in favor of the Company dismissing the Petition in its entirety. On October 28, 2024, the Company received a notice of appeal filed by the petitioners in this proceeding seeking to appeal the court’s dismissal of the Article 78 petition, citing as grounds for appeal “whether the court erred in denying the petition and dismissed the Article 78 proceeding, and any and all other issues which may arise upon further review of the record on appeal”.

On November 12, 2024, the petitioners filed a notice of motion to renew and reargue, seeking to have the court direct the respondents to undertake a supplemental environmental impact statement to address retaining of storm water at the property being developed in light of a recent storm, and to annul the resolution approving the preliminary site plan.

On March 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order denying the appellants motion to stay enforcement of the order, pending hearing and determination of appeal. On March 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County issued an order denying the Petitioners motion to renew and reargue. On April 16, 2025 the Petitioners filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal the March 17, 2025 order denying the appellants motion to stay enforcement of the order dismissing the Petition pending the appeal.

On April 28, 2025 the Petitioners perfected their appeal on the original Petition. The Petitioners’ memorandum of law largely repeats their earlier position and arguments, which the Supreme Court previously found to be an insufficient basis for overturning the Planning Board’s determinations. Gyrodyne filed its response to the Appeal on July 25 th, and the Town submitted its reply to the Appeal on July 28 th.

Pleadings filed in the Article 78 Proceeding may be accessed through a link (and related instructions) to the New York State Unified Court System which appears on the Company’s website athttps://www.gyrodyne.com.

Shareholder Nomination

The Company received a notice dated June 4, 2025 from Star Equity Fund, LP (“Star Equity”), which claimed to own approximately 7.1% of our outstanding shares at the time of submission, purporting to give notice of its intent to nominate a slate of two candidates for election as directors at the 2025 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The Company remains open to ongoing engagement with Star Equity. However, if the Company and Star Equity cannot reach an agreement in connection with its notice of intent to make nominations, there will be a contested election at the Company’s 2025 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

General

In addition to the foregoing, in the normal course of business, Gyrodyne is a party to various legal proceedings. After reviewing all actions and proceedings pending against or involving Gyrodyne, management considers that any loss resulting from such proceedings individually or in the aggregate will not be material to Gyrodyne’s financial condition or results of operations.