SUMMER 2026 NEWSLETTER

MENU

REAL ESTATE LITIGATION

When Does the Statute of Limitations Begin to Accrue Against Developers for Damage or Injury Incurred from Unskilled and/or Defective Construction?

By Adam Leitman Bailey and John Desiderio
 
One of my most repeated lines goes as follows: all newly constructed buildings have problems; the good builders come back and fix them. I should add to my adage, that as long as they sue on time, good lawyer also get buildings fixed. When disputes arise, between sponsor-developers and residential boards and/or individual unit owners, concerning defective construction of newly constructed condominiums and cooperative buildings, the applicability of statutes of limitation to board and unit owners’ claims against the sponsors must be considered before litigation is commenced. Although the limitations periods prescribed in statutory provisions are fairly straightforward, the time from which to measure the accrual of the limitations period,
in any given case, is not always easy to determine.
 
It should be noted that both authors have made a career litigating and writing about litigating newly constructed buildings. According to a search of the New York Law Journal’s archives, Adam Leitman Bailey and John Desiderio’s very first article for the New York Law Journal appeared on September 2, 2002 and was titled: Are Buyers of New Homes subject to Caveat Emptor.” With this article, we have come full circle in our pursuit in understanding multi-family construction law. In Gaidon v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 96 NY2d 201, 210 (2001), the Court of Appeals explained that “[i]n general, a cause of action accrues, triggering commencement of the limitations period, when all of the factual circumstances necessary to establish a right of action have occurred, so that plaintiff would be entitled to
relief.” 
 
More specifically, the Court has held that “no matter how a claim is characterized in the complaint—negligence, malpractice, breach of contract—an owner’s claim arising out of defective construction accrues on date of completion, since all liability has its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties.” City School District of City of Newburgh v. Hugh Stubbins & Associates, 85 NY2d 535 (1995)(Kaye, C.J.). (Emphasis added).
 
 
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION

Cooperative Board Minutes Minimum Requirements to Reject a Cooperative Purchase Application

Adam Leitman Bailey
John M. Desiderio

How is a co-op applicant to know whether a rejection decision was made for legitimate corporate purposes, or because of one or more board members’ unlawful motivations? The first place to look would be the co-op’s minutes of its board meetings. Adam Leitman Bailey and John Desiderio discuss the law surrounding the minimum requirements necessary in the minutes when rejecting a purchase application.

 

This article will discuss cooperative board’s minimum requirements for what to write in their minutes of meetings when rejecting a Cooperative purchase application and how and why co-op boards decide to accept or reject a purchaser applicant for the shares and proprietary lease of one of the co-op’s apartments.

 

Co-op boards generally act under the protection of the business general rule which, for the most part, insulates board activity from judicial scrutiny. See Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 530, 536 (N.Y. 1990); and 40 West 67th Street v. Pullman, 100 NY2d 147 (2003). 

Nevertheless, both Levandusky and Pullman clearly note that board actions motivated by bad faith, self-dealing, or unlawful discriminatory reasons are not protected by the business judgment rule.
 
Nevertheless, co-op board decision-making regarding share/proprietary lease sale/purchase transactions are generally made under by-laws provisions allowing them to be made “for any reason not proscribed by law or for no reason at all.”
 
In such situations, how is one to know whether a particular rejection decision was made for legitimate corporate purposes, or because of one or more board members’ unlawful motivations? The first place to look would be the co-op’s minutes of its board meetings. What does the law require to be recorded therein?
 
The Law Regarding Board Minutes
All corporations must by law keep and maintain minutes of all proceedings in which 
decisions or actions, done or taken in the name of the corporation, are made or authorized by their boards of directors and/or by their shareholders as a whole. Specifically, in New York, a corporation’s duty to keep minutes of its proceedings is prescribed in Business Corporation Law (“BCL”) §624(a):
 
 
(a) Each corporation shall keep and maintain correct and complete books and records of account and shall keep minutes of the proceedings of its shareholders, board and executive committee, if any of the foregoing books, minutes or records may be in written form or in any other form capable of being converted into written form within a reasonable time.
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION

In Order for a 34-Story, 450-Apartment Development worth 9-Figures to be Built, the Developer Turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to Locate Elusive Neighbor and Secures Critical Development Consents to Preserve More Than $75 Million Hudson Yards Project

Adam Leitman Bailey
Karen M. Chau
Nurie Metodieva
In Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s latest victory, the firm helped save the development of one of the last major undeveloped sites in Hudson Yards by locating an elusive neighboring property owner and securing execution of critical zoning and development documents necessary to preserve a project placing more than $75,000,000 at stake.
 
Our client, a well-established real estate investment and development company with a substantial New York portfolio, owned one of the final large undeveloped parcels in Hudson Yards and had spent nearly two decades planning and designing a major mixed-use residential and commercial tower on the site. The property, currently operating as a surface parking lot, had long been viewed as one of the area’s most valuable remaining development opportunities.
 
For years, the client had assembled the approvals, entitlements, and development rights necessary to unlock the project. Among those rights were agreements with the neighboring property owner that merged the properties into a combined zoning lot, transferred development rights, and obligated the neighbor to cooperate with future development approvals.

 

As the project advanced, the client sought to obtain a District Improvement Bonus Certification (“DIB Certification”) from the New York City Planning Commission, an approval necessary to increase allowable floor area and realize the full value of the development. Under the governing Zoning Lot and Development Agreement (“ZLDA”), the neighboring owner was obligated to cooperate by executing building applications, zoning applications, variance applications, and all related documents reasonably required to obtain governmental approvals for the project.
 
But there was a problem.
After almost a year of attempting to identify the current owner and obtain the required signatures, the client had reached a dead end. The neighboring property was owned through a limited liability company, ownership records were unclear, and repeated outreach attempts failed.
 
That is when Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained.
 
The firm immediately got to work.

 

Read the full article here
CONDOMINIUM/COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION

Evidence Matters: Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevails at Trial Representing a Property 

Management Company in a Lawsuit Over Alleged Removal of Personal Property

Courtney J. Lerias

Caleb J. Brown

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. prevails at trial after defeating its adversary by using the rules of evidence to its favor.

 

In a highly contentious matter, a Unit Owner in a Condominium, sued his property management company, alleging that they instructed the superintendent to discard of the Unit Owner’s personal property. In support of the Unit Owner’s claim, he submitted documentary “evidence” that his lessee misunderstood where he could store his personal property in the building’s storage room. Because of this alleged misunderstanding, the lessee purportedly called upon the property management company to remove all personal property belonging to the Unit Owner.

 

The property management called Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., and emphatically denied any wrongdoing. The property management company shared its evidence that refuted the Unit Owner’s claim. More importantly, the property management company shared the Unit Owner’s “evidence” which immediately created a clear path to victory. The rules of evidence would lead Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., and its client to victory.

 

As every lawyer learns in law school, a case cannot be based solely on hearsay. The law requires evidence be both relevant and in admissible form. The Unit Owner’s claim was entirely based on inadmissible evidence. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., instructed its client to focus on the rules of evidence rather than the contents of the case. The court could not grant judgment in favor of the Unit Owner without admissible evidence.

 

At trial, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. picked apart the Unit Owner’s case. At nearly every turn, objections to hearsay were put on the record by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Every piece of “evidence” submitted by the Unit Owner was objected to as hearsay and under the best evidence rule. The court agreed and warned the Unit Owner and his attorney that his “evidence” is not admissible.

 

After trial, the court reserved its decision.

LANDLORD REPRESENTATION

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Achieves Full Eviction After Difficult Seven-Year Post-Foreclosure Holdover Cases

Vladimir Mironenko

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., achieved simultaneous execution of multiple warrants of eviction spanning two post-foreclosure holdover proceedings, successfully obtaining full possession of a single-family home in Queens following a long and difficult seven-year battle.
 
In 2019, the homeowner, who was the highest bidder at a foreclosure sale, hired our firm to substitute into an existing holdover proceeding against the prior owner of the home and numerous tenants and occupants living throughout the property.
 
The prior owner, represented by counsel, challenged the sufficiency of the predicate notice. We discontinued the case against the prior owner, served a new predicate notice exhibiting the certified referee’s deed, and commenced a new case. The prior owner filed an answer with numerous defenses, including arguing that he was also a tenant of the premises. We moved for summary judgment and dismissal of all affirmative defenses, successfully argued that he could not be both an owner and a tenant, won the motion, obtained a judgment of possession, and obtained a warrant.
 
However, this win was merely part of a long saga to obtain judgments of possession and warrants of eviction against numerous other occupants of the home because the owner had a revolving door of occupants in the premises.
 
One by one, various named respondents and other alleged occupants of the home began filing answers and orders to show cause in the first proceeding. We began picking them off by entering into stipulations of settlement, which provided for judgments of possession and warrants, winning motions for summary judgment, and winning motions for default judgment pursuant to applicable procedures immediately following COVID-19 for those respondents who failed to appear.
 
We accumulated multiple judgments and warrants, but additional alleged occupants continued to file orders to show cause seeking to be added to the case and asserting possessory rights.
CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION

Rare Trial Over a Breach of a License Agreement Awards Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Client a 

7-Figure Resolution

Joanna C. Peck

After more than a year of negotiations concerning a proposed demolition project adjacent to Plaintiff’s historic East Village landmark building, Defendant-Developer commenced a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 881 seeking a license to access Plaintiff’s property in connection with its demolition work.  Plaintiff owned a mixed-use landmark building occupied by both residential and commercial tenants and sought to ensure that any demolition activities would not jeopardize the structural integrity of the building or the safety of its occupants. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. vigorously opposed the developer’s application, arguing that the proposed protections were inadequate and that Defendant-Developer had repeatedly failed to address serious safety concerns throughout the negotiation process.
 
Following extensive negotiations and litigation, the parties ultimately entered into a comprehensive agreement governing the demolition phase of the project. The agreement incorporated numerous protections demanded by Plaintiff, including building monitoring requirements, stop-work protocols, site-security obligations, broad indemnification provisions, and attorneys’ fees protections designed to safeguard the landmark property and its occupants throughout the demolition process.
Despite securing access through the agreement, Defendant-Developer almost immediately began disregarding the very protections it had agreed to implement. By the conclusion of the demolition work, Defendant-Developer had committed a pattern of repeated and significant breaches that ultimately became central to Plaintiff’s claims and the powerful evidentiary record developed at trial.  Among other violations, Defendant-Developer failed to properly install and maintain monitoring systems designed to detect movement in the landmark building during demolition activities. The developer also provided incorrect movement thresholds to the monitoring company responsible for overseeing the property, undermining one of the most critical safeguards intended to protect the building from structural damage.  Even more troubling, when monitoring alerts indicated that movement thresholds had been exceeded and work should have stopped, Defendant-Developer continued demolition activities in violation of both the agreement and established safety protocols.  Defendant-Developer also violated Department of Buildings permit requirements governing the demolition project. Although the permit required the use of handheld demolition methods intended to minimize vibration and protect neighboring structures, Defendant-Developer instead utilized heavy demolition equipment that generated excessive vibration and ultimately caused structural damage to Plaintiff’s landmark building.
COMMERCIAL LANDLORD REPRESENTATION

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Saves Restaurant and Prevents Lease Termination by Using Creative and Sophisticated Legal Arguments

Dov A Treiman
Eric S. Askanase
Nurie Metodieva
Representing the property owner, following a successful foreclosure action (which we also handled) Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., successfully opposed a motion to dismiss in a post-foreclosure summary holdover proceeding in Nassau County. We also secured judgment of possession by summary determination under CPLR 409(b) without the need to cross-move or proceed to trial. The Court awarded our client judgment of possession of the property and issued a warrant of eviction.
 
Following the foreclosure sale of the property, we commenced a post-foreclosure summary eviction proceeding. Before initiating the proceeding, we served the required 10-day and 90-day post-foreclosure notices upon any potential occupants of the property.
The occupants were also provided with a copy of the certified referee’s deed, evidencing the petitioner’s ownership of the property following the foreclosure sale. Two respondents, through counsel, appeared and moved to dismiss the proceeding on two separate grounds.
 
First, respondents argued that the petitioner was required to commence separate proceedings against other named respondents listed in the petition and against the two movants. Second, respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to comply with RPAPL § 1303 and 1305, statutes governing notices in foreclosure-related proceedings.
 
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., aggressively opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that the proceeding had been properly commenced and that respondents’ arguments lacked merit.
 
With respect to the first argument, we demonstrated that summary proceedings are routinely commenced against multiple occupants of the same premises. The respondents named in the petition were the individuals alleged to occupy the apartment; the movants did not argue that they occupied different units within the property, and there was no legal requirement to file separate proceedings.
CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Ensures Sale of Cooperative for Shareholder After Recalcitrant Board Rejects Multiple Buyers

Eric S. Askanase

It is every New York City cooperative apartment owner’s greatest fear: that the Cooperative Board will somehow interfere with the shareholders’ ability to sell their unit with no rhyme, reason, or explanation. In the case of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client, the estate of a long-time Bronx cooperative shareholder, the simple attempt to sell the deceased’s apartment played out like a Hollywood potboiler, with the Cooperative Board rejecting buyer after buyer with no justification, in a veiled attempt to potentially force the estate to sell the apartment at a sweetheart rate to a building insider.
 
The shareholder had purchased her apartment decades ago and, after she passed, her estate (a charity), simply wanted to sell the apartment at a fair price to any of the dozens of buyers who were looking for a bargain, so that the Estate could stop paying maintenance and carrying charges for an empty apartment. The apartment had never been renovated and would require extensive work from any buyer – and the Estate was aware that they needed to price it accordingly to make a quick sale. Indeed, within days of posting the apartment the 
estate had multiple interested buyers who were all offering at or above asking price. The estate selected an all-cash buyer with excellent credit and references and presented its package to the Cooperative for an easy approval. But, the Cooperative Board had other ideas, and denied the sale, refusing to provide any explanation whatsoever.
 
The estate’s broker learned that the Board may be concerned that the apartment’s low price might impact sales of other units. So, on its next go round, the estate found a well-qualified, all cash, buyer willing to pay a premium to meet the Board’s perceived price point; but, the Board again rejected the sale without explanation and then also rejected the estate’s alternate buyer. By now, the estate had heard through the grapevine that the Board may have been holding up the sale because one the unit’s neighbors was interested in the apartment; but the neighbor had never made an offer. Frustrated with the mounting delays and inaction, the estate engaged Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to intercede with the Board and facilitate a sale, either through negotiation or litigation.
CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Quickly and Efficiently Stops Soho Cooperative Board From Blocking Retail Storefront Rights After Nearly Two Years of Interference

Adam Leitman Bailey

Karen M. Chau

In Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s latest victory, the firm successfully compelled a Soho cooperative board to cease interfering with a retail unit owner’s contractual rights and recognize the owner’s exclusive right to use a storefront display window and blade sign – critical features necessary to lease the space to retail tenants.
 
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by a leading global alternative investment manager focused on value-add property investments (the “Shareholder”), which owns the cooperative shares allocated to a retail unit consisting of a ground-floor loft and a portion of the basement in a prime Soho building. For almost two years, the cooperative board interfered with the Shareholder’s rights under the proprietary lease by claiming that the Shareholder could not use a display window at the front of the retail unit or a blade sign that had for years advertised the retail unit’s tenants to passersby.
 
The Board replaced the locks on the display window and removed the blade sign, effectively preventing any tenant from advertising their business. As a result of the Board’s conduct, the Shareholder lost an existing tenant and was unable to secure a new one. Prospective tenants repeatedly declined to lease the space because they could not install storefront signage – an essential feature for any retail business in Soho. The Board’s interference left the premises vacant for nearly two years (approximately 22 months), causing the Shareholder substantial financial losses.

CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Defeats Shareholder’s Motion to Dismiss and Preserves Cooperative Board’s Claims Seeking to End Decades-Long Unauthorized Commercial Parking Operation

Jeffrey R. Metz
In a long-standing dispute between a shareholder in a commercial cooperative building and the board of the cooperative, the issue arose as to whether the shareholder’s demised premises included an area which permitted her to park cars for profit. When answering the shareholder’s article 78/declaratory judgment action, ALBPC, on behalf of the Board interposed certain counterclaims seeking to recover monetary damages for the loss of the corporate opportunity spanning more than two decades, as well as a declaratory judgment that the prior, and any future, operation of the parking lot constituted a breach of the shareholder’s proprietary lease. Additionally, a counterclaim for a permanent injunction forever barring the shareholder from any continued operation of the lot was asserted. The shareholder moved to dismiss all of the counterclaims. The court, however, found that Board’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment- enriching herself at the corporation’s expense- should stand as well as the counterclaims for declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief. As a result,  the shareholder cannot park with impunity and a trial will determine whether (i) the Board should recover damages,  (ii) whether the lease was breached, which could eventuate in termination of the proprietary lease, (iii) whether the operation should cease to exist, and (iv) the amount of legal fees due to the cooperative.

PURCHASE & SALE OF HOMES

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Navigates a Complex Foreclosure Closing

Rosemary Luizzo Mohammed
Our firm recently represented a Purchaser in the successful acquisition of a foreclosure property located in East Hampton, New York. This transaction involved multiple layers of complexity, including assignments of foreclosure bids, strict foreclosure timelines, and unexpected title challenges.
 
The property was originally purchased at foreclosure auction pursuant to a Terms of Sale. Following the auction, the winning bid was assigned through multiple parties before ultimately being transferred to our purchasing client. Our firm guided the purchaser through this multi-step assignment structure, ensuring that all rights were properly conveyed and that the transaction remained compliant with the foreclosure sale requirements.
 
As is common in foreclosure transactions, the purchaser was required to close under strict “time is of the essence” conditions, with significant risk of default if deadlines were not met. Despite these pressures, our team successfully coordinated the closing process and ensured that Patagonia was able to take title to the property.
 
Shortly before closing, an additional complication arose: a foreclosure-related issue caused the original title company to refuse to insure the transaction. This presented a significant risk to the deal, as failure to close could have resulted in forfeiture of the deposit and loss of the investment opportunity. 
LANDLORD REPRESENTATION

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Successfully Vindicates a Condominium Sponsor Against Baseless Fraud Claims Alleging Wrongfully Misstating Operating Budget to Increase Sales Prices

Adam Leitman Bailey

Courtney J. Lerias

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.  was retained to defend the sponsor and sponsor-appointed board members of a beautifully built, luxury Manhattan condominium in a complex, multi-million dollar litigation brought by the condominium’s board of managers. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff-board brought claims against the sponsor and sponsor-appointed board members for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that the sponsor purposely misstated the operating budget for the condominium in the original offering plan and its subsequent amendments, to keep common charges low and increase sales, and that the sponsor appointed board members purposely failed to raise common charges for the same purposes, in an effort to benefit the sponsor.
 
To establish a claim of fraudulent inducement, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.” Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 178 (2011).
 
Through extensive discovery, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to establish the falsity of the plaintiff’s claims and disprove the key element of scienter, by showing that neither the sponsor nor the sponsor-appointed board members had any knowledge that the offering plan or its subsequent amendments did not accurately estimate the common charges for the condominium at the time that those documents were submitted to the New York Attorney General. Specifically, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. obtained and then used the plaintiff’s own financial records, board minutes, and witness testimony to establish that the condominium’s projected operating budget was accurate at the time of the offering plan and remained so at the time that the sponsor submitted offering plan amendments with budget projections to the New York Attorney General, and that plaintiff possessed no evidence that defendants knowingly understated common charges or acted for an improper purpose. ALB was able to establish that it was not until years after the condominium began its operations, and after all amendments with budget projections were submitted to the Attorney General, that it became clear to the sponsor and the sponsor appointed board members that the budget was too low to support the condominium’s operations.
 
 
CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION

Applicant for Mitchell-Lama Apartment Required to Pay Past Arrears Owed on Another Apartment as Condition for Approval

Bonnie Reid Berkow
Is Housing Company permitted to reject an applicant who applied with brother as co-occupant, where brother owes back rent (use and occupancy) on another unit where he was denied succession rights?
 
Yes, a Mitchell-Lama housing company can generally reject an applicant if a proposed co-occupant family member owes outstanding rent or carrying charges to the housing company, even if the debt is tied to a different unit.
 
The Mitchell-Lama Rules
Mitchell-Lama developments are governed by strict regulations. When a housing company reviews an applicant, they are legally permitted to evaluate the entire household’s financial history, stability, and character. If a prospective co-occupant has a history of rent arrears, the housing company may view this as a financial risk to the company.
 
Co-Applicant’s Family Member Owes Back Rent
In this case, the brother (co-applicant) was previously denied succession rights in another apartment.
 
The Mitchell-Lama rules permit an applicant to continue in occupancy pending determination by the agency of his succession application, but he is required to pay use and occupancy for the apartment in an amount equal to the monthly rental paid by the vacating cooperator. § 3.02 (p)(8)(iii).

REAL ESTATE LITIGATION

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Wins Important Expert Battle During Trial

Karen M. Chau
Adam Leitman Bailey
Ben Rose

In another victory for Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., the firm took over from another law firm who had failed to introduce certain important evidence. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully obtained an important decision allowing the firm to introduce that new and crucial expert testimony in the middle of an extensive trial in which millions of dollars were at stake.

 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by defendants in the midst of trial, after attorneys are required to have disclosed the experts that they intend to call at trial and the opinion that those experts will give. After reviewing the file and the portions of trial that had already been completed, however, it became apparent to the firm that expert testimony on valuation was crucial to obtaining victory for the clients —but the counsel that had the case prior to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had not retained such an expert, much less disclosed them or their opinion.

 

Despite the difficulty of introducing a new expert in the middle of trial, Adam Leitman Bailey successfully petitioned the Court to do so, overcoming objections from opposing counsel.

 

In its filings with the Court, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that the new witness would be coming in as a rebuttal witness to refute statements by plaintiffs’ valuation expert. While even rebuttal witnesses normally must be disclosed before trial, the firm argued that the new expert was needed to rebut testimony by plaintiffs’ expert that plaintiffs had not disclosed prior to the trial — in other words, that the plaintiffs had surprised defendants with expert testimony that plaintiffs did not tell defendants about.

 

 

Specifically Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. essentially argued that, while plaintiffs had disclosed that they were bringing a valuation expert to apply “generally accepted valuation methodologies,” plaintiffs’ expert had in fact been so deeply unqualified and that his opinion had strayed so far from accepted methodologies that defendants unexpectedly had to bring in an expert who could explain the right methodologies to use and why plaintiffs’ expert opinion was worthless.

Read more
JUDGMENT COLLECTION & ASSET RECOVERY GROUP
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias

NEW Practice Group: Judgment Collection & Asset Recovery Group

As most trial attorneys experience daily, winning the trial may not prove fruitful if one cannot collect on the judgment ordered by the Court.
 
Navigating through the complex systems, hiding behind limited liability companies and bankruptcy are all roadblocks that can impede collection for our clients.
 
Today, we announce Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s Judgment Collection and Asset Recovery Group. 
 
We are honored to introduce the practice group’s leader, Melissa Levine, the greatest collection attorney whom we have ever worked with. Please read her articles below- the first two of many that she will write with the firm!

 

JUDGMENT COLLECTION & ASSET RECOVERY GROUP

My Life as a Judgment Collection & Asset Recovery Treasure Hunter

Melissa Levine
I have been an attorney since 1991, with an emphasis on debtor and creditor rights and liabilities. In the last 10 to 15 years, I have mostly represented companies and people that are owed money and/or have money judgments.
 
Collection is often a social justice issue. My clients seek my services to collect on judgments connected to contractor malfeasance, unpaid rent, unpaid wages, landlord’s failure to return security deposits, sexual discrimination judgments, divorce judgments, including alimony and/or child support, or for a myriad of other reasons.
 
The typical debtor will go to great lengths to hide their assets so that they don’t have to pay a judgment or debt. That’s where I come in. I am known amongst many as the treasure hunter. I will hunt down assets of the debtor, through the judicial process, and grab those assets and use them to pay the judgment for my clients. Thus, in the area of commercial leases, after the landlord tenant process is completed, I will typically seek judgments against the personal guarantors and go after their assets.
 
In one such case, after I obtained the judgment against the personal guarantor, I discovered he was hiding his money in his company’s account. I restrained that account, which shut down his very active business, and within a few days, my client was paid in full.
 
Often, guarantors think that since their company vacated the commercial space, that they are no longer liable for outstanding rent owed by the company to the landlord. As per the terms of most commercial leases, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, typically, a company and its guarantor are liable for rent until the end of the term, which, unless the space is rented to a new tenant covering that unexpired term, for the same or greater rental rate, is likely to result in a large judgment against those entities.
In another case, the guarantor, after vacating the premises, was under the impression that she was no longer liable to the landlord, fired her attorney, and then thereafter I obtained, on behalf of the creditor, a large judgment against the guarantor, for rent to the end of the term. 
JUDGMENT COLLECTION & ASSET RECOVERY GROUP
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
The 10-Year Trap: Is your Real Estate Judgment Lien About to Expire?
Melissa Levine
You have secured a major court victory and obtained a large money judgment, but that is only half the battle, especially where you have a lien against valuable real estate owned by the debtor. It is important to know that, without obtaining an extension, the enforceability of that judgment may expire after 20 years, and that valuable lien may terminate after just 10 years.
 
If your lien expires before a court grants an extension and the new lien is docketed, you can completely lose your priority status to any competing mortgages, tax liens, or subsequent buyers recorded during the gap between the expiration of your old lien and the new lien. New York courts strictly prohibit retroactive (nunc pro tunc) relief to jump ahead of those intervening interests.
 
The highly experienced attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. are available to educate you on your New York judgment enforcement rights, ensure the longevity of your judgment and judgment lien, and aggressively collect what you are owed.
New York Judgment Enforcement: Securing and Extending Real Estate Liens:
Part One: Creating Judgment Liens Against a Debtor’s Real Estate
With few exceptions, docketing a money judgment with the county clerk in the county where a judgment is issued by a New York State Supreme Court or County Court creates an immediate judgment lien against the debtor’s real estate situated in that county. (CPLR 5018(a)). The statute also provides that judgments of the Family Court automatically create a lien against real estate located in the county where that judgment is entered, but in practice this does not appear to be the rule.
 
You must take additional steps to docket a judgment lien against real property for judgments issued by lower courts, including, but not limited to, New York City Civil Court, municipal and local courts, Federal District Court, and likely Family Court as well. 
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias

CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION

New York City’s New Co-op Application Timeline Law: Rules, Deadlines, and Requirements

Zoe Tsicalos
On January 29, 2026, the New York City Council enacted Int. No. 1120-B, also known as the Cooperative Application Timeline Law (the “Law”). The Law is now codified in the New York City Administrative Code and establishes clear requirements, deadlines, and written standards governing the manner in which cooperative boards in New York City process purchase applications for the sale of cooperative apartments.
 
The Law takes effect on July 28, 2026, and applies to purchase applications submitted on or after that date.
 
History and Purpose of the Law
Historically, prospective purchasers of cooperative apartments in New York City have often encountered significant delays in obtaining board approval following the submission of purchase applications. These delays can cause transactions to remain pending for weeks or even months, leaving both purchasers and sellers in a prolonged period of uncertainty.
 
City officials contended that the lack of transparency in the cooperative apartment approval process resulted in economic inefficiencies and potential for discriminatory outcomes. In response, the New York City Council enacted the Law establishing procedural requirements and timelines governing the review and approval of cooperative purchase applications. The legislation was ultimately enacted after the City Council voted to override a mayoral veto, demonstrating strong legislative support for enhancing transparency, accountability, and fairness in the cooperative board approval process.
Read more
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION

Recent Legislation Allows Residential Cooperatives with Long-Term Ground Leases to Renew Their Leases at Any Time

Bonnie Reid Berkow
One of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.'s clients is a residential cooperative in Queens that is located on land held through a 99-year ground lease set to expire in 2025. According to the terms of the ground lease, the tenant may exercise its right to renew no more than 24 months and no less than 18 months prior to the expiration of the initial term. However, the remaining term of the lease is now less than 30 years, which impacts both the cooperative's and its shareholders' ability to obtain financing, as many lenders require any underlying lease to extend for at least 30 years. The client asked Adam Leitman Bailey whether it would be able to exercise its right to renew the lease early.
 
There are many residential cooperative buildings in New York City that are located on property held through long-term ground leases—typically 99 years. When a ground lease has fewer than 30 years remaining, many residential cooperatives begin to encounter difficulties obtaining mortgage financing for both the cooperative and its shareholders, as most lenders require any underlying lease to extend for at least 30 years so that it is co-terminous with the mortgage. This requirement applies both to proprietary leases and to ground leases. Cooperatives can readily extend proprietary leases for another 50 years or more through a shareholder vote. However, many ground leases provide that a request to renew the lease may be made only during a specific period before its expiration date, which may still be more than 20 years in the future.
New York has recently passed legislation to address this challenge associated with long-term ground leases.
 
Senate Bill S9721A/2023, which was enacted on September 27, 2024, enables residential cooperatives with ground leases to extend or renew those leases at any time, provided that the leases permit such extensions or renewals at the sole option of the tenant cooperatives. The legislation protects private cooperatives but explicitly excludes "excepted ground lease owners." This means the protections do not apply to ground leases owned by the federal government, the State of New York, the City of New York, Indian nations, or approved 501(c)(3) charitable organizations that acquired their interests prior to January 1, 2024.
 
The bill amends Real Property Law § 233(c) and states as follows:
 
Notwithstanding any term of a subject residential cooperative ground lease to the contrary, if a subject residential cooperative ground lease authorizes the ground lease residential cooperative to renew or extend its lease at the sole option of the ground lease residential cooperative, then the ground lease residential cooperative may exercise such right to renew or extend at any time prior to the expiration of the subject residential cooperative ground lease in accordance with all other terms thereof.
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATION
Zoe Tsicalos
Adam Leitman Bailey

Understanding New York’s Pied-à-Terre Tax: What Owners of Second Homes in New York City Need to Know

On May 26, 2026, the New York State Legislature enacted the Fiscal Year 2026–2027 Budget Bill, which amended Article 30-C of the New York State Tax Law by adding Sections 1350 through 1356, collectively titled “City Surcharge on Property That Does Not Serve as a Primary Residence.” The surcharge is known as the Pied- à-Terre Tax (“Tax”). Additionally, the New York City Administrative Code was amended to establish the procedures and mechanisms necessary to administer, collect, and enforce the Tax. The New York City Department of Finance is responsible for enforcing the law.
 
Overview
The Tax is set to take effect on July 1, 2026, and is set to expire on June 30, 2031. The Tax will impact homeowners of luxury, high-value secondary residences in New York City by subjecting such homeowners to an annual tax, which is estimated to generate $500 million per year.
 
The Tax applies to owners of a “covered property” that does not qualify as the owner’s primary residence. For purposes of the Tax, covered properties include:
1. 1 to 3 family residential properties with a value of $5 million or more;
2. Cooperative apartments with a value of $1 million or more; and
3. Condominium apartments with a value of $1 million or more.

Importantly, owners whose primary residence is located in New York City will not be subject to the Tax, even if they own additional properties within the City.

This reflects the Legislature’s focus on imposing the Tax on high-value secondary residences rather than on individuals who maintain their principal residence in New York City and are already subject to both New York State and New York City income taxes.
 
However, an individual whose primary residence is located outside New York City- even if located elsewhere in New York State- will be subject to the Tax on a secondary residence located within New York City. For example, a taxpayer whose principal residence is in Westchester, Long Island, or another area of New York State outside the five boroughs will incur the Tax if they own or purchase a covered secondary residence in New York City.
 
Implementation of the Tax: Two Phases
The Tax will be implemented in two phases. Phase I will commence on July 1, 2026, and continue through June 30, 2028. Phase II will begin on July 1, 2028, and remain in effect through June 30, 2031, or until the law is otherwise terminated.
Phase I
During Phase I, July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2028, covered properties will be taxed at the following rates:
1. 1 to 3 family residential properties ($5 million or more): 0.8% to 1.3%
2. Cooperative and condominium apartments ($1 million or more): 4% to 6.5%
 
It is important to note that such tax rates will be dependent on the New York City Department of Finance's determination of assessed value.
 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Achieves a 2027 Vault Ranking as the Fifth Best Midsize Law Firm to Work for in the United States of America

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has earned national recognition from Vault Law in its newly released 2026-2027 rankings as the fifth best law firm to work in the United States of America. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. is only one of 2 firms in New York City that have reached the top 5 ranking, making us the 2nd best law firm to work at in New York State and the Number 1 best real estate and litigation law firm in New York State.
 
The firm received national recognition in several categories, including: 
#1 Best Midsize Law Firms for Associate/Partner Relations 
#1 Best Midsize Law Firms for Wellness 
#2 Best Midsize Law Firms for Hours 
#2 Best Midsize Law Firms for Quality of Work 
 
In the 2027 rankings cycle, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. upheld its strong national standing among midsize firms and the prestigious Top 150 Under 150 list, a distinction reserved for elite firms with 150 attorneys or fewer. 
 
As one of the few New York-based midsize firms consistently ranked, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s continued inclusion reflects the firm’s commitment to high-level legal work, mentorship, collaboration and professional growth opportunities for all attorneys. 

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has been recognized as a 2026 U.S. News & World Report Best Companies to Work For – Law Firms

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. is humbled to have received national recognition as a 2026 U.S. News Best Companies to Work For Law Firm, making us the only firm in New York with 30 or less attorneys to be named to this list.
 
The U.S. News & World Report uses a data-driven methodology to evaluate firms based on criteria such as quality of pay and benefits, work-life balance and flexibility, physical and psychological comfort, and belongingness and esteem. This ensures fact-based and accurate selections measured by the qualities that legal professionals value most in a workplace.
 
We hold immense gratitude for this award and for the attorneys and staff who contribute to the firm’s placement as one of the best places to work in the nation.

Happy 250th Birthday, America!

The symbol of freedom shining outside of our office against a summer night sky. Working late at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. certainly has it's own benefits, and the view never gets old.