FALL 2026 NEWSLETTER
MENU
Offering Plan Certifications and the Evolution of Sponsor Liability
-19ed28d7ec0acf827c7c1b4127b1902ee4af7e9a.png?v=10052026205315){kind=logo}
.png?v=04072026211728)
The Martin Act (General Business Law [“GBL”] §352[1][a]) requires sponsor developers of newly constructed condominiums and cooperative apartments to file an offering statement with the attorney general which discloses such information as is prescribed by the Attorney General in rules and regulations adopted under GBL §352-3(6)) “as will afford potential…purchasers…an adequate basis upon which to found their judgment and shall not omit any material fact or contain any untrue statement of a material fact.” Kerusa Co. LLC v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Limited Partnership, 12 NY3d 236, 243 (2009) (Emphasis added).
The attorney general’s regulations detail the content and format of the offering plans and filings, “including the word-for-word representation that must be made in the certification to be sworn by the sponsor and the sponsor’s principals in the offering plan [13 NYCRR 20.4[b]).” (Emphasis added). This article will examine the evolving nature of New York court opinions, over more than two decades, which have construed and applied the “word-for-word” sponsor certification; first, from being applied in accordance with the plain language of the statute, but then becoming almost a bullet proof shield against allegations of common law fraud, to finally, more recently being a shortcut to sponsor’s and sponsor principals’ liability. The evolving analysis and application of the certification can be seen occurring in court opinions issued over three periods of time: (a) the 1990’s, when courts read and applied the “word-for-word” sponsor certification as written and held sponsors to their sworn certifications that their offering plans contained no “untrue statement of a material fact,” (b) the early 2000’s to approximately 2016, when courts became concerned whether plaintiffs’ private common-law fraud actions, based on alleged sponsor offering plan misrepresentations, were barred, if the complained of activity was deemed to fall under the Attorney General’s exclusive Martin Act enforcement authority; and the period since 2016, where the courts appear to have renewed their original “word-for-word” reading of sponsors’ certifications, holding them to the sworn truth of their offering plan representations.The opinions issued in this last period now provide a sure ground for plaintiffs’ standing to sue sponsors and their principals, and not be barred from doing so, by either Martin Act or “alter ego” corporate shield considerations.
The Sponsor and Sponsor Principals’ Certification
13 NYCRR 20.4(b) prescribes that the sponsor and sponsor’s principals (in their capacity as principals) certify that “we” (a) have read the entire offering plan,
(b) have investigated the facts set forth in the offering plan and the underlying facts, (c) have exercised due diligence to form a basis for their certification, and (d) that “we jointly and severally certify that the offering plan does, and that the documents submitted hereafter by us which amend or supplement the offering plan will:
(1) set forth the detailed terms of the transaction and be complete, current, and accurate;(2) afford potential investors, purchasers and participants an adequate basis upon which to found their judgment;(3) not omit any material fact;(4) not contain any untrue statement of a material fact;(5) not contain any fraud, deception, concealment, suppression, false pretense or fictitious or pretended purchase or sale;(6) not contain any promise or representation as to the future which is beyond reasonable expectation or unwarranted by existing circumstances;” and, perhaps most significantly:(7) not contain any representation or statement which is false, where I/we (i) knew the truth; (ii) with reasonable effort could have known the truth; (iii) made no reasonable effort to ascertain the truth, or (iv) did not have knowledge concerning the representation or statement made.” (Emphasis added)The sponsor and sponsor principals must also certify that their certification is made under penalty of perjury for the benefit of all persons to whom their offer is made, and that they understand that violations are subject to the civil and criminal penalties of the GBL and the Penal Law. (Emphasis added)
Cases Prior to ‘Kerusa’
The earliest recorded case, which construes the Sponsor and Sponsor Principal’s Certification is Residential Board of Managers of Zeckendorf Towers v. Union Square-14th Street Associates, 190 AD2d 636 (1st Dept. 1993), where the First Department held that “the IAS Court did not err in…not [dismissing the complaint] as against defendant Zeckendorf, where the complaint alleges that Zeckendorf, in both his individual capacity and as president of defendant Gilrin Holding Corp., signed the Certification of Sponsor, thereby knowingly and intentionally advancing the alleged misrepresentations in the offering plan.” (Emphasis added).
The Second Department soon reached a similar result in Zanani v. Savad, 228 AD2d 584 (2d Dept. 1996).In Zanani, the motion court was held to have erred in denying summary judgment dismissing the individual defendant’s affirmative defense that they “could not be held personally liable as they were acting in their capacities as officers of the corporate defendants.”The Second Department held that the “certification of the offering plan, submitted by the plaintiff, demonstrates that the individual defendants executed
the certification in their individual capacities,” and that,
“By doing so, the individual defendants thereby knowingly and intentionally advanced the alleged misrepresentations of the offering, and thus, can be held personally liable.” (citing Zeckendorf , supra ).The First Department also held, in an Attorney General prosecution, State of New York v. Sonifer Realty Corp., Kenneth K. W. Ma, Individually and as President of Sonifer Realty Corp., 212 AD2d 366 (1st Dept. 1995), (on February 2, 1995) that “the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the action against defendant-appellant, the president of the corporate sponsor,…since he participated in the alleged fraudulent practice by signing the certificate to the offering plan, and is therefore subject to liability as a principal.”However, a month later, on March 9, 1995, in Whitehall Tenants Corp. v. Estate of Robert S. Olnick, 213 Ad2d 200 (1st Dept. 1995), without either citing or discussing the Sponsor and Sponsor Principal’s Certification, the First Department held that, while private plaintiffs are not foreclosed from alleging a cause of action for common-law fraud, “private plaintiffs will not be permitted through artful pleading to press any claim based on the sort of wrong given over to the Attorney-General under the Martin Act.” (Emphasis added).The court explained that “[w]ithout evidence of reliance by its shareholders…or intent to defraud by the sponsor…plaintiff is endeavoring to vindicate its shareholders for information withheld or misrepresented by the sponsor, which is exactly what the Martin Act commits exclusively to the Attorney General.” (Emphasis added)Thereafter, as noted in Kramer v. W10Z/514 Real Estate Limited Partnership, 44 AD3d 457, 458 (1st Dept. 2007), a First Department panel (headed by the same presiding justice who had presided in Whitehall ) explained (again without either citing or discussing the Sponsor and Sponsor Principal’s Certification) that Whitehall was “the apparent progenitor” of a “line of authority” which had held, despite the holding in in Zeckendorf, supra (see Kramer, 44 AD3d, at 458), that private party claims of fraud against a sponsor who allegedly knowingly and intentionally advanced a misrepresentation in the offering plan” by executing the sponsor and sponsor principals certification, were “barred by the Martin Act.”The Kramer court noted that the “reasoning of Whitehall Tenant Corp., however, [had] been extended to cases in which there [was] no legitimate reason to question at the pleading stage the ability of the plaintiff to prove all of the essential elements of common law fraud.”
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Preserves Shareholders’ Right to Challenge NYC Co-op Sale Restrictions
Jeffrey R. Metz
An elderly Manhattan couple, both cooperative shareholders, needed to sell their East River Housing Corporation (“East River”) unit so the husband could relocate for critical medical treatment. The prospective purchaser offered what the buyer and seller considered fair market value, but the East River co-op board denied the application based on an unwritten minimum sale-price “floor.” This denial effectively required a higher purchase price before granting consent.
The couple sued East River, alleging breach of the proprietary lease and breach of fiduciary duty. East River moved to dismiss the claims and, alternatively, sought summary judgment and a declaration that it could rely solely on the purchase price when exercising its consent rights.
The sellers soon became plaintiffs in Stromberg v. East River Housing Corp. and turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., one of the most successful real estate firms in New York.
“Our goal was to ensure the clients would receive justice in the form of a fair value for their unit so they could move forward with their lives and take proper care of their health,” said firm founder Adam Leitman Bailey, who has been recognized in Best Lawyers® since 2015 for Real Estate Law in New York.
Solution
Bailey and his lawyers framed the dispute as a contract and governance case rather than a pure business judgment rule issue.
“We argued that the board’s unwritten price floor was an improper restraint and outside the scope of the proprietary lease,” he said. “At its core, it was anti-competitive and a move to artificially inflate prices.”
The firm opposed dismissal and summary judgment by highlighting factual disputes regarding whether the “sum” demanded by the board reflected legitimate market-value considerations. Bailey argued the board’s demand was an arbitrary price condition unrelated to any identified risk associated with the buyer.
The firm also opposed the request for declaratory relief, arguing that while price can be a factor in evaluating a proposed purchaser, it cannot serve as the sole criterion under the guise of board discretion or the business judgment rule.
“We knew we were headed for the appellate courts, but we’re one of the most successful New York appellate firms,” Bailey noted. “We were confident in our abilities to strategize.”
Result
The Appellate Division, First Department, declined to issue the declaratory judgment requested by East River and allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed past the board’s threshold motions. In doing so, the court confirmed that a cooperative board may not rely on an apartment’s purchase price as the sole ground for withholding consent to a sale.
“This was an incredible decision for the underdogs—the clients and our firm—because it symbolized the core concept of right versus wrong,” said Bailey, who worked alongside Partner Jeffrey R. Metz, who also serves as chief the firm’s Appellate Bureau. “And we had a local community supporting us—some of whom had been similarly impacted and others who simply cared about our clients. The defendant immediately changed their ways and went even further than expected, by requiring that the letter of the law be followed and pricing would no longer be an issue.
That others would not suffer the same ignominy is a true testament to our success.”
Broader Legal Impact
The Appellate Division’s decision in Stromberg v. East River Housing Corp. carries significance beyond the immediate parties because it clarifies how cooperative boards may use the sale price when exercising consent rights. It also limits how far boards can go in seeking declaratory relief to validate their practices.
“The court recognized that a board may consider the proposed sales price as one factor in evaluating a purchaser,” Bailey noted. “More importantly, they rejected the notion that price may serve as the sole approval criterion, especially where the record suggests an unwritten minimum price floor that functions as a restraint on alienation.”
For practitioners, particularly in New York County and the broader First Department, the decision offers an updated authority limiting the reach of the business judgment rule when boards adopt de facto pricing policies untethered to the proprietary lease or bylaws. Stromberg also tightens the availability of CPLR 3001 declaratory judgments; the First Department dismissed the board’s counterclaim for a broad declaration that it could consider sales price, as the plaintiffs had already conceded that narrow point.
“We weren’t just helping one client. We empowered a community of middle-class residents who were in fear of being priced out,” Bailey said. “Now it’s affected every co-op in New York State and cited by judges and our peers. We’re honored to have secured such a historic decision.”
Ever the Underdog – How Adam Leitman Bailey’s Persistence and Humility Helped Save a $100M Development Without Litigation
When clients turn to a law firm for help, they are often already in a difficult position. Their project has stalled, negotiations have broken down, or a legal obstacle threatens to derail years of work. Adam Leitman Bailey believes lawyers should approach every matter with the mindset of an underdog and never assume success will come easily. He also recognizes that solving a client’s problem often requires far more than legal analysis.
Sometimes that means becoming an investigator, a negotiator, a messenger, or even an observer of subtle human behavior. Those qualities proved decisive when a nearly $100 million residential development in Manhattan appeared headed toward costly litigation over a seemingly simple missing signature.
The Story Behind the Signature
The developer had spent nearly two decades assembling the approvals, air rights, and zoning permissions necessary to move forward with one of the last major undeveloped sites in Hudson Yards. The proposed 34-story residential tower represented years of planning and millions in investment.
Yet a final obstacle threatened the entire transaction.
Under an existing zoning and development agreement approved by the New York City Planning Commission, the developer needed consent from a neighboring property owner before construction could proceed. Without those signatures, the project could be delayed indefinitely, financing could be jeopardized, and development costs could continue to mount.
Just one problem: No one could find the owner.
Professional investigators had already been hired. Traditional outreach had failed. Public records produced little clarity, and every conventional avenue had been exhausted. With the transaction at risk, the developer turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.
Looking Beyond the Obvious
“The role of the lawyer became something more than advocacy in the traditional sense,” Bailey said. “We had to become investigators and succeed where the prior investigators failed.”
Rather than treating the matter as a routine document request, Bailey’s team approached it as a complex search. They combed through court filings, traced prior litigation involving the ownership entity, and followed every available lead that might identify someone with access to the elusive decision-maker.
Each seemingly promising avenue eventually reached another dead end.
Recognizing that time was running short, the firm simultaneously prepared litigation papers so the client would be prepared if court intervention became necessary. But Bailey viewed litigation as a safeguard, not the objective. “Our focus remained on finding a practical solution that would spare the client additional expense and delay,” Bailey noted.
Persistence Over Pressure
Even a colleague who was finally able to find the development owner offered little hope. After nearly three days, the attorney reported that while he had managed to reach the owner, the developer told him not to communicate with Bailey’s firm. Calls and messages were ignored, and another potential breakthrough disappeared.
As the development team grew increasingly anxious, Bailey refused to abandon the search.
Eventually, the firm uncovered an obscure business address connected to the ownership entity through decades-old records. It was little more than a long shot, but Bailey believed it was worth pursuing.
Accompanied by a member of the client’s team, he visited the office in person. Rather than arriving with demands or threats, they introduced themselves respectfully, explained the situation clearly, and simply asked for help.
“We ascertained that the owner was from another country, and we knew we should present ourselves as dignified and professional, wearing suits, ties and smiles,” Bailey said. “By giving respect and demonstrating genuine kindness, we set the right tone.”
The visit revealed an important clue. Bailey noticed that the person who seemed to be a receptionist spoke to the owner with an unusual degree of familiarity; far more like a family member than an employee. Although no immediate progress was made, the interaction confirmed that the owner remained connected to the business and that personal trust, rather than legal leverage, would likely determine the outcome.
The woman at the desk asked them to wait in a small conference room. No one could guess what would happen next.
Winning Trust
When the office manager returned, Bailey calmly explained that they needed only the owner’s consent and were willing to cover the owner’s legal fees.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Wins Motion, Resulting in Vacating of License Fee Award Against Manhattan Cooperative
Joanna C. Peck
When a Manhattan cooperative corporation (“Corporation”) found itself on the losing end of a five-figure license fee award tied to a contentious Local Law 11 façade restoration project, the board turned to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to reverse course — and get the case back on track. The Corporation governing a Manhattan apartment building, had entered into a Court-ordered license agreement with Respondents to allow access to their building in connection with the Corporation’s Façade Inspection Safety Program (FISP) work, mandated under New York City’s Local Law 11. As is common with major façade projects, the work did not proceed on the original timeline due to unavoidable delays, which were covered as delays under the license agreement.
Respondents, unsatisfied with the Corporation’s explanation and submissions regarding the delays, moved to hold the Corporation in contempt, alleging violations of the license agreement, and seeking license fees for the extended access period.
In its February 2026 decision, the motion court denied the contempt application outright — finding that Respondents had never properly served the Corporation, as required under Judiciary Law § 761 — but nevertheless went on to award Respondents their claimed license fees as part of that same defective motion. The Corporation was left with a substantial monetary judgment stemming from a motion the court itself had found procedurally invalid.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. moved swiftly on behalf of the Corporation, seeking leave to reargue under CPLR 2221(d). The firm argued that the court should never have reached the merits of the license-fee dispute within a contempt motion it had already found procedurally defective for lack of personal service. The firm further marshalled new evidentiary material demonstrating that delays in the FISP work were attributable to the Department of Buildings’ own internal processing — including new requirements imposed on the cooperative that had not previously applied — squarely implicating the “Unavoidable Delays” provision of the License Agreement. The firm also challenged the court’s reliance on an expert affirmation that Respondents had improperly introduced for the first time in reply papers, depriving the Corporation of any fair opportunity to respond.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Convinces Court to Vacate Temporary Restraining Order and Allow Vital Remediation of Historic Cooperative Property
John M. Desiderio
Nurie Metodieva
A historic cooperative in New York was faced with a difficult situation. A number of issues simultaneously confronted the cooperative, including deferred maintenance on the nearly 100 year-old buildings and a costly misinterpretation of city ordinances resulting in fines and requiring remediation, the coop was looking at a significant assessment for all of its shareholders, as well as a disruptive construction plan that would require a number of residents to relocate while the work was being done.
The elected coop board had acted in the best interests of the coop; they hired architects and engineers who performed a great deal of testing and probing of the structures, which in turn revealed additional issues and resulted in ever-increasing estimates of the cost of the work. The board kept the shareholders apprised of the situation as they negotiated with contractors, financial institutions and assorted specialists, including hazardous materials experts and professionals to guide them through the permitting process at the New York Department of Buildings.
The magnitude of the job, as well as the size of the anticipated assessment, caused understandable concern among the shareholders, which the board tried to assuage. But a small group of dissident shareholders ran to court to stop the project, alleging that the board members had conflicts of interest and had breached their duties to the shareholders. The application to the court came at a crucial moment when the board was concluding negotiations over construction and financing and the commencement of the project was imminent.
A judge signed an emergency Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the coop to stop work while issues allegedly raised by the dissident group were litigated. Upon receiving the TRO, the attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. got to work, putting together a counter-application to the court which set forth the herculean efforts undertaken by the coop board in making plans for the project and keeping the shareholders apprised on an ongoing basis of the magnitude of the job, the status of the planning and the potential costs to the shareholders.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Wins Trial in Commercial Breach of Contract Action Securing Indemnification for Handicap Accessibility Claims
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., recently prevailed at trial on behalf of a Manhattan commercial landlord in a breach of contract action arising from a former commercial tenant’s obligations under its lease, and the guarantor’s obligations under the lease guaranty, including the obligations to indemnify the landlord for claims arising from the tenant’s use and occupancy of the premises concerning handicap accessibility.
The lease required the tenant to indemnify the landlord against claims, damages, expenses, and judgments arising from the use or occupancy of the premises. The lease specifically required the tenant, at its own expense, to comply with regulations concerning access to the premises by handicapped persons. The lease was secured by a personal guarantee executed by the tenant’s principal.
During the tenancy, the landlord was named as a defendant in a federal court lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) associated with the commercial premises in the building. The landlord defended and settled that action to resolve the ADA claims.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., then commenced an action seeking reimbursement from the commercial tenant and guarantor pursuant to the indemnification and hold harmless provision of the lease.
The tenant argued that it should not be responsible for the landlord’s settlement because the building contained two storefronts and the ADA claims involved conditions that could have arisen from either storefront.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. established at trial that the tenant’s lease specifically identified its premises and that the ADA complaint asserted detailed violations against both the tenant and the occupant of the adjoining storefront. The Court determined that the tenant’s contractual indemnification obligation extended to claims arising from conditions in its store.
The Court applied a fair and equitable allocation and determined that one-half of the landlord’s federal claim settlement was attributable to the tenant’s premises. The Court therefore found the tenant liable under the lease’s indemnification provision.
The landlord also sought, and the Court awarded, unpaid rent under the lease after determining that the tenant failed to pay rent in the last several months of the lease term and that the tenant overstayed the expiration of its lease term.
The Court directed the entry of a money judgment in favor of the landlord against both the commercial tenant and the guarantor.
How a Wife’s Rights of Survivorship and Possession in Real Estate Interfered with a Creditor’s Plan to Sell a Vacation Home to Satisfy a Judgment Against her Husband
.png?v=06292026175921)
Melissa Levine
REPEAT AFTER ME—”There is no such thing as a ‘family friend’ when it comes to lending money!”
Work-around
A Client lent $150,000.00 on a handshake to the father of his old college roommate (“Debtor”). The only evidence of the loan was the checks transferring the funds.
The Client did not secure the loan with a mortgage or other lien against real property, even though the Debtor and his wife owned an unencumbered summer home (“Vacation Home”). The client was unconcerned because he had spent many school holidays at the roommate’s home and knew his friend’s parents very well. He was glad to help the father, who was experiencing severe financial problems.
The Debtor never repaid the loan, despite the client’s repeated requests.
The Client ultimately sued the Debtor, bringing an end to his friendship with his college roommate and to holiday celebrations with the family.
The Debtor defended the lawsuit by claiming the funds were not a loan, but rather a down payment to purchase the Debtor’s fledgling business. The court ruled in favor of the Client, awarding a judgment against the Debtor in the amount of $202,834.71 (“Loan Judgment”).
The Judgment Collection & Asset Recovery Group attorneys were hired by the Client to collect on the Loan Judgment. Reviewing the Debtor’s assets, counsel discovered that after receiving the loan, the Debtor engaged in asset protection planning clearly designed to evade creditors, including the client. Specifically, the Debtor transferred his interest in the Vacation Home to his wife, making her the sole owner on paper.
Prior to this transfer, the Debtor and his wife owned the property as tenants by the entirety. See EPTL 6-2.2(b) (“A disposition of real property to a husband and wife creates in them a tenancy by the entirety, unless expressly declared to be a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common.”). Owning real estate as tenants by the entirety provides certain protections, including:
· (i) Both spouses enjoy an equal right to possession of and profits yielded by the property (Goldman v. Goldman, 95 N.Y.2d 120, 122 (2000)); and
· (ii) The married couple takes title as one person, and the right of survivorship inheres from the original grant (Prario v. Novo, 168 Misc. 2d 610, 611 (Sup. Ct. 1996); see also Plancher v. Plancher, 35 A.D.2d 417, 420 (2d Dept. 1970), aff’d, 29 N.Y.2d 880 (1972) (“[O]n the death of one [spouse], the surviving spouse takes the entire estate. The survivor takes the whole in case of death, because that event has terminated the marriage, and the consequent unity of person”)). (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Successfully Defends Co-Op Board Against Charges of Malfeasance and Breach of Fiduciary Duty
John M. Desiderio
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by a cooperative apartment corporation, consisting of 114 residential units spread among an eight-building complex of one-hundred-year-old landmark buildings. The corporation’s board had determined that the building complex requires extensive repairs and renovation to address seriously deteriorating and dangerous conditions which have developed over time.
Prior to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s engagement, the board of the corporation had consulted engineer, architect, expediter, and contractor professionals to determine the scope of work needed to address the situation and to provide estimates of the costs of undertaking and completing the project. The board had issued periodic advisements to all shareholders regarding the projected construction work and initial budgetary estimates for the project – including preliminary assessments and information regarding the anticipated dislocation of certain shareholders from penthouse apartments during required roof repairs to their buildings.
On May 8th, at a crucial stage of the board’s actions, in the midst efforts to finalize the planning and obtaining bids for the project, a dissident group of eight shareholder-tenants, through their attorney, claiming to comprise a purported homeowners association, sent a blunderbuss letter-demand to inspect all the corporation’s books and records relating to the project.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secures Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale for Its Lender Client Despite the Borrower’s Strategic Delay Tactics
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. represented a lender in a foreclosure action where the borrower continued to delay the action to continue collecting rental income from the property.
At first, the borrower sought to modify the mortgage. The lender, in good faith, extended a modification offer to the borrower, but the borrower declined. Clearly, this was a delay tactic meant to prolong the action.
After the case was released from conferencing. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. quickly secured an Order of Reference and Summary Judgment despite borrower cross-moving and opposing based upon him trying to get a modification. The borrower set forth specific terms that he wanted to modify the mortgage which were not aligned to the lender’s modification offer. The Court determined that the lender did not have to make the exact offer that defendant wanted, and that the failure of the lender to make the exact offer is not a lack of good faith.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. quickly prepared a motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and submitted it to the Court. Given the decision for the prior motion, the borrower and his attorney both knew that borrower had no defense for this action. Therefore, their next strategy to delay the action was for the attorney to move to be relieved as counsel.
Borrower’s counsel filed an order to show cause, which effectively stayed the action pending the appearance on the motion to be relieved as counsel.
At the return date of the order to show cause, the Judge issued an order whereby she adjourned the motion for Judgment of Foreclosure Sale to the same day as an in-person status conference. The judge also relieved borrower’s counsel and set the return date to allow the borrower to retain new counsel and oppose the motion.
On the status conference day, which was also the return date of the motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale, the borrower failed to appear or have a new attorney appear on his behalf. Initially, the judge questioned whether the borrower was aware of the appearance, but Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. informed the judge that the borrower appeared at the last appearance and reminded the judge that she included a notation on the prior order to prove that the borrower was fully aware of the return date.
Due to this hand-holding by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. the judge agreed to mark the motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale fully submitted.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Secures Judgment of Possession in Licensee Holdover Proceeding
Carolyn Z. Rualo
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully obtained a judgment of possession on behalf of a homeowner seeking to remove a licensee from her single-family home after the licensee refused to vacate the property following the revocation of his permission to reside there.
The homeowner originally permitted the licensee to live in the home but later decided that she no longer wished to permit his occupancy. Despite the revocation of his permission, the licensee refused to leave and asserted that he was entitled to monetary compensation from the homeowner.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. commenced a holdover proceeding in Housing Court and attached an affirmation in which the licensee expressly admitted that he was not, and had never been, a tenant of the homeowner. By securing this admission at the outset, the firm prevented the licensee from later attempting to characterize himself as a tenant or asserting defenses based upon a landlord-tenant relationship.
The firm provided the licensee with additional time to file an Answer and obtained an agreement from his attorneys to waive any traverse defenses. Rather than filing an Answer, however, the licensee moved to stay the proceeding based upon his purported claims for money. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. opposed the motion, arguing that the alleged monetary claims had no bearing on the holdover proceeding and could not prevent the homeowner from obtaining possession of her property. The licensee remained free to pursue any purported monetary claims in a separate plenary action.
The Court agreed with Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. and denied the motion to stay, allowing the holdover proceeding to continue.
LANDLORD REPRESENTATION
A Decade of Advocacy: Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secures $500,000 Judgment and Comprehensive Resolution of Sponsor Disputes for Manhattan Condominium
Through a decade of representation spanning litigation, appeals, and intensive settlement negotiations, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. secured a series of significant victories for a luxury Manhattan condominium in connection with disputes arising from the development and operation of the building, including substantial claims against the building’s sponsor, a prominent New York City real estate developer. The representation ultimately resulted in a $500,000 judgment and a negotiated settlement that addressed longstanding financial, property, and regulatory issues affecting the condominium.
The Challenge
The firm was initially retained by the condominium board a decade ago to address significant construction defects at the property and to compel the sponsor to satisfy its obligations under the offering plan relating to those conditions.
As the firm investigated the building’s history, governing documents, financial records, and sponsor obligations, however, the matter expanded well beyond the original construction claims. The firm determined that the condominium’s reserve fund had not been funded in the amount required under the offering plan and governing law, giving rise to a substantial additional claim against the sponsor.
The firm also identified another significant unresolved issue: the sponsor had never obtained a final permanent Certificate of Occupancy for the building, as required under the offering plan. Resolving that issue became an important component of the firm’s strategy because a monetary recovery alone would not eliminate the regulatory and practical consequences of the outstanding Certificate of Occupancy.
COMMERCIAL TENANT REPRESENTATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Motion to Dismiss Granted in the Commercial Part of the Civil Court of New York Against a Landlord Pursuing Collection of Disputed Rent Arrears and Nonpayment of Rent
Dov A Treiman
Charles W. McMellon
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. represents a commercial franchise tenant occupying a rental space on Second Avenue in Manhattan. After a dispute between the tenant and landlord concerning the landlord’s oral promise of a rent reduction during COVID, the landlord commenced a commercial non-payment eviction proceeding against the tenant. In the tenant’s defense, an answer was submitted to the Court claiming the landlord was attempting to recoup rent monies waived during COVID as well as several other acts that diminished the value of the leasehold.
Represented by Adam Leitman Bailey PC, and exploiting a pleading mistake by landlord’s counsel, a motion to dismiss the proceeding was granted, affording the tenant time to vacate to a new location.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Wins Default Money Judgment Against Commercial Tenant and Guarantors, then Successfully Opposes Motion to Vacate Judgment, and Obtains Additional Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., successfully represented a commercial landlord in a New York County Supreme Court action arising from a tenant’s default under a commercial lease and the guarantors’ defaults under related personal guaranties. After obtaining a default money judgment against the tenant and guarantors, the firm defeated the defendants’ attempt to vacate the judgment and secured an additional judgment awarding the landlord its contractual attorneys’ fees.
The dispute arose after the commercial tenant defaulted under its lease by failing to satisfy its rental obligations and abandoned the premises. Pursuant to the lease and accompanying guaranties, the landlord commenced an action in Supreme Court seeking to recover unpaid rent, additional rent, and other damages recoverable under the parties’ agreements. Despite being properly served with the summons and complaint, neither the tenant nor the guarantors timely appeared or answered.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., promptly moved for a default judgment. The Court granted the motion and entered judgment against both the tenant and the guarantors, jointly and severally, for the amounts due under the lease and guaranties. Rather than satisfy the judgment, the guarantors moved to vacate their default, contending that they should be permitted to defend the action notwithstanding their failure to answer.
Under New York law, a party seeking to vacate a default must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense. The guarantors argued law office failure on the part of their alleged counsel and a meritorious defense based on a flawed interpretation of the guaranty, claiming that the tenants’ vacatur from the premises cut off the guarantors’ monetary obligations.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., successfully demonstrated that the defendants could establish neither requirement. We argued, and the Court agreed, that the guarantors failed to provide sufficient specificity regarding their alleged retention of counsel to defend the action and fatally failed to stay apprised of the status of the action. We also argued that the guarantors’ purported defense lacked merit because, in the guaranties in the cases the guarantors relied upon, the guarantors’ monetary obligations terminated upon the tenant’s surrender of physical possession of the premises, whereas in the guaranty at issue here the guaranty included the required element and pre-condition of payment of the tenant’s arrears. The guarantors failed to demonstrate (or even to sufficiently allege) payment. Therefore, their monetary obligations to the landlord continued to accrue notwithstanding the tenant’s vacatur from the premises.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Obtains Quick Repair Order for Proprietary Lessee Against Cooperative Through Housing Part Action After Taking Over as Counsel In Delayed Supreme Court Action
It is a common story in New York real estate: a shareholder in a New York City cooperative apartment building is the victim of an unresponsive Board that refuses to make necessary repairs to common elements or damage cause by its own inaction and turns to legal counsel for justice. Unfortunately, when those attorneys are not regularly deep “in the dirt” of real estate law, their advice can regularly cost the shareholder tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary fees and years of unwanted delays, all while their apartment often remains uninhabitable. However, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. handles such cases on a daily basis and has the experience, skills, and knowledge of the New York court system to greatly reduce costs, in both time and money, and force cooperative boards to make necessary repairs at their own expense by utilizing a multi-pronged approach in multiple New York courts.
Recently, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had the privilege of helping a savvy shareholder in a New York City cooperative building address precisely these sorts of issues: the shareholder’s apartment was suffering a heavy mold infestation and severe physical damage after repeated and dramatic flooding from an adjoining terrace owned by the cooperative that resulted from the cooperative’s failure to maintain the terrace over multiple decades. Indeed, even a cursory inspection of the terrace showed severe cracks in the terrace surface, degradation in pitch forcing water towards the unit, and failure of waterproofing that allowed active penetration of water from the terrace into the shareholder’s apartment at any rainfall. The situation was so dramatic that the shareholder’s dog could literally swim on the terrace after a heavy rainfall. As a result of this continuous water infiltration, the shareholder’s apartment was uninhabitable, with extreme degradation of her flooring and plaster, and documented dangerous mold levels.
Over the course of many years, the shareholder attempted to convince the cooperative board to do its fiduciary and contractual duties and fix the problem. However, the board was at best non-responsive, and at worst contemptuous, refusing to accept any responsibility; and, instead accusing the shareholder of causing the water damage by leaving a door ajar, while all the evidence indicated infiltration through the wall and floor of the unit directly from the adjacent terrace surface. The cooperative also refused to commence any repairs unless the shareholder agreed to front expenses for all repair costs.
After Hiring Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Shareholder Earns Right to Sublet Apartment
The clients came to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. after receiving an alarming and threatening letter from the Board of the Manhattan Cooperative in which the clients owned shares and held leases for two units. They had been allowing members of their extended families to use the units since the pandemic. They did not have written leases and were essentially charging only enough rent to cover their costs but not to make profits.
As this was a family arrangement, the clients assumed, mistakenly, that they needed the consent of the coop, which they had not obtained. They were also unaware aware that the Coop had adopted a sublet fee equal to 10% of the rents obtained by the subletting shareholder.
Because there were no written leases for these unconsented sublets, the coop took the position that the clients owed 10% of market value rent for each of the leases. Additionally, the coop believed that the apartments had been sublet since approximately 2018. As a result, the coop was seeking six figures from the clients for the unpaid sublet fees, plus significant legal fees.
By virtue of their negotiating skills as well as their thorough knowledge of coop law, the attorneys at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. were able to raise questions about whether the coop’s procedures were followed in adopting the sublet fees, and were also able to convince the coop’s attorneys that the terms of the rentals were much shorter than the coop had alleged, and that the rents to the clients’ tenant/family members were well below the market. As a result of these negotiations, ALBPC was able to obtain a settlement for the clients for significantly less than the coop had initially sought, and were also able to negotiate significant savings on the coop legal fees payable by the clients.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Successfully Represents Property Management Company Through Investigation by New York State Attorney General’s Office
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully represented a longtime client, which manages over properties in Manhattan, during the course of an investigation by the Office of the New York State Attorney General (“OAG”). The client has produced responses to a subpoena served by the OAG in early 2024, and thus far the OAG has not brought any claims against the client based on the investigation.
The OAG had initially investigated, from 2021 to 2023, the landlord of one property managed by the client, for alleged discrimination based on a lawful source of income. One individual, apparently a housing “tester,” contacted a real estate broker whom the landlord had retained, and asked whether the landlord accepted housing subsidy vouchers under the federal Section 8 voucher program (“Section 8”). The broker replied that she did not think so. This was incorrect: the landlord (and the management company) was willing to accept Section 8 voucher holders as tenants, but, due to the high price of the units in the property, the property had rarely had any applicants who were recipients of Section 8 or other housing vouchers, because voucher recipients had insufficient income, even when the vouchers were added, to be able to afford the units in the property.
The New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), codified at New York Executive Law § 296, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), codified at New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, both prohibit discrimination in housing on the basis of, among other factors, an applicant’s lawful source of income. Thus, for example, a landlord and a property management company in New York City cannot refuse to lease an apartment to a housing applicant on the basis of the tenant’s receiving a housing subsidy, such as Section 8.
Violations of antidiscrimination laws typically can be in two different forms. One is disparate treatment, in which the housing provider discriminates directly based on a factor that it is not permitted to consider. For example, this would be the case if the housing provider outright refused to accept any applications from persons who held Section 8 vouchers.
Cybersecurity Protection in Management Agreements
In light of the current dangers that private and confidential information contained in the digital files maintained by Cooperative associations, Condominiums, other housing associations and their managing agents may be hacked or otherwise illegally accessed, it is now recommended that the Cooperative and Condominium Boards require their management companies to obtain cyber liability insurance coverage (CLIC), with minimum limit of $1,000,000 to cover liability for a data breach in which personal information of employees, customers or vendors of Agent is exposed or stolen by a hacker or other unauthorized person who has gained access to the electronic network and data of Agent, with respect to records and data relating to the operations of Agent.
The cyber insurance policy covers Information Privacy Events and Network Security Events.
An Information Privacy Event in cyber security insurance is an unauthorized disclosure, access, loss, theft, or compromise of sensitive personal or confidential data that triggers policy coverage or third-party liability. The compromised data may involve Personally Identifiable Information (PII) like Social Security numbers, bank accounts, and health records (Protected Health Information or PHI), or confidential corporate and employee data. Liability can stem from malicious cyberattacks (hacking, malware) or non-technical failures (lost unencrypted laptops, improper disposal of paper files).
A network security event in cyber security insurance is any unauthorized access, breach, or malicious disruption of an organization’s computer network or IT systems that results in financial loss or liability. It serves as the core trigger for policy coverage. Examples include:
· Ransomware and Malware: Malicious software that infects systems, locks data, or halts network operations.
· Data Breaches: Unauthorized actors stealing or exposing sensitive customer, employee, or corporate data.
· Denial of Service (DoS/DDoS): Attacks that flood a network with traffic, making resources unavailable to legitimate users.
· Business Email Compromise (BEC): Unauthorized access to corporate communication channels leading to fraud or data exfiltration.
Insurance coverage. The cyber liability insurance would:
(i) cover immediate operational costs like forensic investigations, mandatory consumer notifications, call centers, and credit-monitoring services for affected individuals.
(ii) protect against lawsuits, customer class-action claims, and legal defense costs if victims sue for the unauthorized exposure of their private data.
(iii) pay for legal representation and potential fines arising from government investigations into privacy law violations (such as HIPAA or state-level privacy statutes).
Changes to Fannie Mae Project Standards
On March 18, 2026, Fannie Mae issued Lender Letter LL-2026-03, rewriting condominium project standards by ending the Limited Review Pathway for all loan applications dated on or after August 3, 2026. The Limited Review Pathway was a streamlined approval route that in some cases allowed lenders to approve loans in established projects using basic project information, without a deep analysis of the association’s finances. Established projects with more than ten units must now undergo a Full Review, which evaluates the association’s budget, reserve funding, insurance, delinquency rates, pending litigation, special assessments and inspection reports. Projects with ten or fewer units may instead qualify for an expanded Waiver of Project Review. Under this rewrite, the building itself must now qualify, and a larger down payment no longer earns a lighter review.
The letter also tightens a building’s reserve requirements in two steps. Effective August 3, 2026, when a lender relies on a reserve study, the budget must include the study’s highest recommended reserve allocation. The baseline funding method, which lets the reserve balance approach but never fall below zero, is no longer permitted. For applications dated on or after January 4, 2027, the minimum reserve allocation under Full Review rises from 10% to 15% of the annual budgeted assessment income.
Fannie Mae explained that it has seen a correlation between underfunded reserves and projects needing critical repairs. Its published guidance also indicates that special assessments cannot be used in place of the budgeted reserve allocation. Boards that have historically relied on special assessments should expect pressure toward higher regular assessments.
The rule on building violations was extremely tightened following the 2021 Champlain Towers South collapse in Miami, Florida, which killed 98 people. This led Fannie Mae to write critical-repair and deferred-maintenance requirements into its Selling Guide. This rule remains unchanged, but a Full Review makes open problems much harder to overlook. A project is ineligible if it has failed a mandatory state, county or other jurisdictional inspection or certification specific to structural safety, soundness or habitability, or if it has unaddressed critical repairs, until the repairs are completed and documented. Unfunded repairs costing more than $10,000 per unit within the next 12 months can also trigger ineligibility, though repairs funded through a special assessment are excluded.
New York City Loft Law Update: New Compliance Rules and Penalties
The New York City Loft Board adopted important rule changes affecting owners of buildings regulated as Interim Multiple Dwellings (“IMD”) under the Loft Law. The amendments took effect on July 8, 2026.
The amendments strengthen requirements for completing the process of bringing loft units converted from commercial, manufacturing, or other non-residential uses into compliance with applicable residential, building, housing, and fire-safety requirements to obtain a residential certificate of occupancy (“CO”). The amendments further increase the financial consequences for owners who fail to meet their obligations.
What is the Loft Law?
In 1982, the New York State Legislature enacted Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law (“MDL”), known as the Loft Law. The Loft Law created a new class of buildings in New York City known as IMDs. When initially enacted, the Loft Law permitted certain former commercial and manufacturing spaces to be converted to legal residential use if they have been occupied as residences by at least three (3) families living independently during the period from April 1, 1980, through December 1, 1981, and were in zoning districts that permitted residential use. The Legislature later expanded the Loft Law, extending its protections and legalization provisions to qualifying commercial and manufacturing spaces that were used residentially during additional periods.
New Certificate of Occupancy Requirements
One of the most significant changes to the Loft Law relates to fire and safety compliance under Article 7-B of the MDL. Prior to the amendments, certain owners of IMDs could establish compliance under Article 7-B through a certification filed by a registered architect or professional engineer.
Under the amendments, affected buildings are required to obtain at least a temporary certificate of occupancy (“TCO”) for the residential portions of the buildings. Owners with an Article 7-B certification already filed are required to obtain a residential TCO or final CO within six months of the effective date of the amendments.
.png?v=10052026152511)
Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. Has Been Selected to be in the Legal 500 2027 Ranking
We are honored to announce that Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. has been recognized in The Legal 500 USA 2027, one of the legal profession’s most respected independent guides to outstanding law firms and attorneys. This recognition reflects our commitment to providing exceptional legal representation, strategic advocacy, and outstanding client service.
When selecting Adam Leitman Bailey to be included it noted:
Based in New York, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. specializes in litigating a range of real estate disputes, spanning construction, land use, commercial leasing, and financial matters, representing landlords and tenants of newly constructed properties, including condominiums, multi-family dwellings, corporate spaces, and retail buildings. The firm’s founder, Adam Leitman Bailey, is recognized for his expertise in complex residential and commercial real estate litigation, as well as his ability to achieve significant results for condominium, hospitality, and other commercial clients in trials and appeals.
The Legal 500 is one of the world’s leading independent legal directories. For decades, it has evaluated law firms and attorneys through an extensive research process designed to identify those delivering exceptional legal services.
Unlike awards that are based primarily on nominations or marketing submissions, Legal 500 researchers conduct months of independent analysis that includes:
- Detailed review of representative matters and case work.
- Written submissions documenting significant legal achievements.
- Independent interviews with attorneys.
- Confidential feedback from clients.
- Input from peers and other respected professionals in the legal community.
The rankings are published only after this comprehensive evaluation, making recognition a meaningful indicator of professional excellence.
Recognition in The Legal 500 is highly competitive. Each year, researchers evaluate thousands of law firms and attorneys across numerous practice areas. Only a select percentage earn recognition in the published rankings.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Lawyers Receive 2027 Best Lawyer Awards
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. is proud to announce that Adam Leitman Bailey and Jeffrey Metz have been recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America for Real Estate Law, alongside Ben Rose, who has been named a Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America Rising Star.
The recognition is particularly meaningful because Best Lawyers’ methodology is grounded in peer review. Attorneys are evaluated confidentially by other leading lawyers practicing in the same geographic and legal practice areas, with selections reflecting the professional respect and confidence of their peers. Best Lawyers describes its process as an exhaustive peer-review survey designed to identify attorneys held in high esteem by other lawyers in their field who understand the work and what excellence truly looks like.
For Mr. Bailey, the 2027 recognition continues a longstanding relationship with Best Lawyers, where he has received the award for 10 consecutive years, the first being in 2015. His recognition accompanied by Mr. Metz and Mr. Rose underscores the depth of talent within Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.—from an attorney whose career has helped shape New York real estate litigation to an established appellate leader and the next generation of attorneys making their mark.
The recognition comes during an especially significant year for the firm. Mr. Bailey was recently profiled by Best Lawyers following the firm’s successful effort to save a nearly $100 million Hudson Yards development, a matter that exemplifies the creative, relentless approach that has defined the firm.
Adam Leitman Bailey Named a City & State’s 2026 Trailblazer in Real Estate
City & State has recognized Adam Leitman Bailey with the 2026 Trailblazers in Real Estate award. This award honors the notable leaders who are working to reshape and rebuild New York, including developers, policymakers, nonprofit leaders, attorneys and other top figures who are making an impact. This year, the selection team paid special attention to spotlighting the key players who will determine how successful New York will be in combating the housing crisis, making this award even more timely and relevant. Adam Leitman Bailey’s extensive work with low-to-moderate income cooperatives and his extensive housing expertise and policy advice to numerous elected officials and City, State and Federal governmental representatives has been exemplary.
From City & State New York, “Adam Leitman Bailey built his real estate litigation practice around cases that redraw the rules for owners, boards, buyers and lenders. Bailey won a ruling establishing that prospective co-op purchasers may challenge discriminatory rejections, while a later victory barred boards from rejecting buyers solely over price. He represented buyers at the Trump SoHo New York who alleged misleading sales figures, helping them recover 90% of their deposits. Bailey also relied on a seldom-used federal law during the housing crisis and founded Save Harlem, whose legal efforts produced more than $1 million for tenants.”
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Recognized Among Crain’s Best Places to Work in New York City for the 8th Time
Out of all of the businesses in New York, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has been recognized as one of Crain’s Best Places to Work in New York City for the 8th time. This honor also adds to a year of meaningful recognition for the firm’s workplace and culture, with Best Companies to Work for rankings from the U.S. News & World Report and Vault as well.
We could not be more honored to receive this prestigious award. Our firm is our family. We work as a team. We have a wonderful work culture. We are there for one another every day. These honors recognize the qualities that define our firm, and we are grateful to continue earning accolades for our commitment to excellence.
Abigail Olsen, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Marketing Director, at the 2026 Crain's Best Places to Work in New York City Luncheon.
Adam Leitman Bailey Named a 2026 Crain’s New York Notable Leader in Accounting, Consulting and Law
Adam Leitman Bailey, founding partner of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., has been recognized by Crain’s New York Business as a 2026 Notable Leader in Accounting, Consulting and Law, honoring his leadership and impact within New York’s legal community.
The recognition highlights influential professionals whose leadership, accomplishments, and contributions have helped shape New York’s professional services community. For Adam Leitman Bailey, the honor reflects decades of advocacy on behalf of property owners, developers, lenders, cooperatives, condominiums, landlords, tenants, and more in New York’s complex real estate market.
Throughout his career, Mr. Bailey has developed a reputation for taking on high-stakes and precedent-setting real estate disputes and pursuing innovative legal strategies when conventional approaches are not enough. His work has included major commercial and residential real estate litigation, appellate matters, landlord-tenant disputes, title litigation, cooperative and condominium disputes, and matters involving some of New York City’s most significant properties and developments.
In selecting recipients of this award, Crain’s editors identified leaders who stand out among their peers for demonstrating significant impact in their field and making strong community contributions. The recognition adds to a growing list of honors received by Bailey and Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., which has been repeatedly recognized by leading legal and business publications and organizations for its work in New York real estate law. Mr. Bailey was also recognized by Crain’s as a Notable New York Litigator in 2025.
For Adam Leitman Bailey, the recognition is not only an individual honor, but also reflects the work of the attorneys and professionals at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. The firm has built its practice around sophisticated real estate litigation and a commitment to finding creative, effective solutions to its clients’ most difficult legal challenges.
My Story: The Day After 9/11/2001
Understanding that my office is less than a football field away from the World Trade Center which was now a cemetery, investigation site, construction site and massive amounts of loose wires and shaky structures, I still decided that I would try to get to our offices on 9-12-01. Once I was in the area, a person who identified himself as working for the FBI said that the entire area was a dangerous place to be. I headed to my client’s office, Sky Management, who allowed me to work from their offices.
By Friday we were back in our office, and learned that a window was opened with a burst of ash and crashed our server/computer. Fortunately ,we also kept a paper calendar and all of our files had been kept in file folders.
Not only was our office phone working, but it was ringing. At that time we practiced in Supreme Court and Housing Court but at that time we were most well known for our Housing Court practice, although we did not have the time to ask too many questions on how these concerned New Yorkers came into our offices. Our community had questions and needed help. We opened our offices on some days for up to 18 hours to handle all of the visitors. We tried making appointments, but eventually our office was fully occupied with people carrying leases and tons of questions.
We worked with the landlords of those who maintained leases in their buildings who had perished on September 11, 2001. The more difficult question was when they were roommates and the surviving roommate could not afford the rent alone.
I gave advice, helped fill out forms, and directed them to Court and took on as many cases as we could. At that time, we did not represent so many of the largest landlords in New York City. We had only started Adam Leitman Bailey P.C, 1 year and 9 months earlier.
Making my job more difficult and still showing sympathy and compassion, we carefully dealt with very sensitive issues. For example, I learned that a small percentage of the Police Officers and Fire Fighters families were very human. Wives and mistresses showed up declaring as many rights as they had questions. I judged no one and simply helped everyone that I could assist. Working with other attorneys, we came up with the phrase that all of the Police Officers and Fire Fighters we worked with were heroes but some of them were not saints.
The next issue were the buildings that had been declared off limits as a result of the tragedy. The residents came to me to get temporary access to get their clothes and necessary belongings. That was the first time I heard the word Hazmat suit.
I then pushed for a full, efficient and facilitated clean up in several of the buildings while obtaining limited access to buildings closest to the tragedy. Many of the buildings were owned by the same companies, so I realized I was working with the same policies. Being so close to these buildings and visiting them was daunting, but necessary. No landlord was demanding rent or starting non-payment cases. I was working with them comparing lists of
who had and had not perished and working with the families coordinating the efforts to terminate their lease without any liability going forward. Almost every landlord was compassionate and reasonable. Much of the time I was answering questions and explaining the housing laws and whatever I knew about trusts and estates law. It seemed that during this time of turmoil a new set of street rules for tenants and landlords came into being for both commercial and residential dwellings. We applied both New York law and these new set of rules to do whatever we could to play a small part in putting New York City back together.
Thankfully, I was single with no children at the time and 31-years-old with an ability to work all hours of the day and night. The firm had two other attorneys who handled the work of the firm while I assisted our community.
There were no advertisements, no television cameras and I still do not know how so many people found us. It was the first time in my life when by November 2001, I was experiencing difficulty mustering up the energy to get to work. I went to the doctor as the words “mental health” had not been invented yet, or I had never heard of them. The doctor said that I desperately needed to take a vacation. So my high school friend and I got on an almost empty plane to Puerto Rico. It rained the entire time, but it did the trick and the four day trip reinvigorated me and I was excited to get back to work in a wounded downtown New York City.
- ALB
EXTERN TESTIMONIAL
"The Work Ethic Here is Astounding." Chase, Summer Associate
"I would 100% recommend this experience to another intern." Jamie, Summer Intern
"It's inspirational to see Adam in this kind of environment" Jana, Summer Intern
Happy 26th Anniversary, Nancy Fernandez!
"It's been a very enjoyable, learning experience being here." said Nancy Fernandez, Director of Billing Operations, "We're growing. The more important and resourceful we can become, the more helpful we can be to clients. We went from a little family to a big family now. I just hope I continue working here as long as the firm is open."
Thank you, Nancy, for all of your hard work and for helping Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. become what it is, 26 years later!