SPRING 2024 NEWSLETTER
MENU
CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE LITIGATION
Who Bears Responsibility for Required Condo/Co-Op Apartment Repairs?
Adam Leitman Bailey
John M. Desiderio
-84f7ef4c82f1bdb91065560d1d45d14df5ebcc83.png?v=02262024142437){kind=logo}
In cases where building management and the unit owner disagree on who bears responsibility for making the repairs and/or who bears the repair costs, the attorney’s role, whether in representing the cooperative or condominium board on the one side or the opposing apartment share-holder or condominium residential or commercial unit owner on the other, is to focus on the several important tasks, discussed here.
New York courts hold that repairs to the interior of residential apartments, or to the commercial space of a building, and to all plumbing therein, whether it be a condominium unit or a cooperative apartment, are the responsibility of the individual apartment unit owner or commercial unit owner, as the case may be. See, e.g., Davis v. Prestige Management Inc., 98 AD3d 909, 951 NYS2d 147 (1st Dept. 2012) (Held: “the condominium’s bylaws provide that repairs and replacements to the units are the responsibility of the unit owners”).
The condominium unit owner’s or cooperative shareholder’s specific repair obligations are respectively set forth in the condominium’s declaration and by-laws or in the cooperative’s offering plan, proprietary lease, and by-laws. See, e.g., Lorne v. 50 Madison Avenue LLC, 65 AD3d 879, 886 NYS2d 1 (1st Dept. 2009) (Held: “It was not unreasonable for the board to require plaintiffs to adhere to the same rules that apply to all other unit owners wishing to make structural repairs.”).
FORECLOSURES
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Wins Summary Judgment Despite Attacks on the Servicer’s Limited Power of Attorney and on the Affidavits of Service for the Notices
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
LANDLORD REPRESENTATION
Despite Throwing the Kitchen Sink, Knives and Tables at the Landlord, Dinner is No Longer Being Served at This Restaurant —Eviction Ordered and Effectuated
Carolyn Z. Rualo
Day in the Life of: Adam Leitman Bailey
A New Yorker through and through, Adam Leitman Bailey, 53, actually moved from Bayside, Queens, to LA, of all places, when he was five years old. A self-described “Karate Kid” situation emerged, where he was the one with the Brooklyn accent, Bailey moved back to the East Coast — New Jersey more specifically — when he was 13.
Now a resident of the Upper East Side, Bailey, a graduate of Syracuse University School of Law, says he owns the largest real estate law firm, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., that’s owned by one person. Real estate, Leitman Bailey says, is “in chaos,” so business at his firm is hopping, with cases ranging from foreclosures, lien fights, partners battling over who has the right to make decisions, landlord/tenant disputes and class actions.
Leitman Bailey in 2011 prevailed against Trump Soho on fraud claims, with would-be condominium buyers receiving 90 percent of their deposits — about $3.4 million — after having relied on deceptive sales figures. He’s also worked on landmark cases, like using a forgotten federal statute called the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, during the Great Recession, enabling Leitman Bailey to help void the contracts of sales for buildings over 100 units.
He’s also representing 980 Fifth Avenue against former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer in an unlikely adverse possession case in Manhattan.
While Leitman Bailey was much more interested in talking about his weekend role as a baseball coach for his two school-age kids, The Real Deal asked him to take us through a typical work day (if there is such a thing) in his life,
6 a.m. This is always the same. The alarm clock goes off at 6 a.m., no matter how much or how little sleep I get. I get out of bed right away because I know that the hardest part about running is putting your shoes on. So I get my shoes on and I head to Central Park for my 4 mile run.
I started the routine when I graduated from law school and I received my first job in March of 1996. I cannot wear any gadgets. I wear a Timex $40 watch. It allows me to figure out my cases, go over my problems, go over the day ahead and when you’re finished, you’re now ready for the day.
6:50 a.m. I’m not as fast as I was when I could do that run in 26 minutes. Now it’s slower. The goal is to get back at 6:50. Then I hit the shower, brush my teeth, and shave. I wear Fahrenheit and Burberry colognes, I mix them.
7:10 a.m. My kids get on the bus to go to school at 7: 30 a.m., so I try to spend at least 20 minutes with my kids before they hit that bus. Unfortunately, until Friday, on many nights I don’t see them for weeks during the night.
7:30 a.m. I wear a suit and tie every day to work. No dress downs. My entire firm does that. We were back in the office from Covid in September 2020. All my suits look alike. All my suits are either light blue or dark blue or gray or grayish-blue. So all my suits all match my white and blue shirts. It’s one less decision I have to make. Every time I wake up, once I’m putting on my suit, I don’t have to think. I have a rotation. I have 12 suits that are active. If I wear the suit that day, it goes to the back of the row, and the next suit comes up to the next one. It does change a little based on the judge I’m going in front of. … I know how they’re going to dress, so I’m going to try to match them. We just had a case in front of Judge Cohen, and he’s very corporate, so I wore a very corporate suit and a very corporate tie for that one.
8:30 a.m. There’s one of two patterns every day. Am I going to court or am I going to the office? Today is an office day. So I get a ride in and I do work on the way to the office. I answer the emergency emails the night before, I wake up with hundreds of emails every morning. I am checking the headlines of the day. I have three subscriptions. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and this other news thing that allows me to see the headlines of the newspapers. I also read The Real Deal email every morning. When I was younger I would take the subway to the office, now I realize that by having a ride to the office, I’m getting a half hour of work done, so I do that.
9 a.m. We serve breakfast in the office. It’s stocked for all the employees in the office. If I’m not going to court, I’m gonna eat it at 9 a.m. in the office. I eat the same breakfast every day. I have oatmeal, two hard boiled eggs, I do not eat the yolk, I have a cup of coffee. … I heard that it’s now healthy to eat the yolk, but I was trained that it’s fattening. … If I’m in court this all changes and I hustle to a restaurant around the corner at 8:15 that serves breakfast and get oatmeal, hard boiled eggs and coffee and freshly squeezed orange juice at a diner-type place. I love New York diners. I think it’s one of the best things ever invented. It’s the Bayside Queens in me.
10 a.m. to 1p.m. My day is covered with appointments, both with calls, right now we have 436 emails to answer. We have a 24-hour rule to answer emails. It’s extremely difficult to do that. We’re going to have calls and meetings all day. In between I’m answering calls, pitching calls, doing Zooms, doing calls, and making sure everybody is getting a return call within the 24-hour rule. That is a sacred rule.
We have to hire more attorneys because we’re overwhelmed with work. The real estate world is in chaos. If the real estate world is in chaos, people are going to litigate.
1 p.m. I understand the importance of getting outside. It’s a two-block walk to a local restaurant I like, no one is there, they treat me very well, I order the same thing every day. I order soup — tomato or butternut squash — and an egg skillet dish and avocado. I work while I’m eating. If I’m in court, I have my assistant order me Seemless and get me a Poke bowl. Lunch, because I’m working and eating, could last 20 minutes, it could last 40 minutes, I don’t really notice. I try to make it a 40 minute excursion to get a break from the chaos.
LANDLORD REPRESENTATION
New York Landlord's Obligation in Notifying Residential Tenants of Flood Risk, History, and Insurance
Sereena Ramprashad
Effective June 21, 2023, New York State Real Property Law (Section 231-B) has been amended to require landlords to disclose specific information regarding flood risk and history directly through their residential lease agreements. The statute covers residential leases, encompassing cooperative apartments, condominiums, and rental buildings. Additionally, landlords must include a notice in the lease about the availability of flood insurance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The law affects all residential leases, and notice can be provided through an attached rider. Existing leases should be updated to include this information and notice to ensure compliance with the law.
This change in law aims at tenant safety as New York continues to face increased challenges related to flooding caused by geographic location, urban infrastructure, and the impact of climate change. Transparency and notice empower tenants with critical information to make informed decisions about safety. It will likely affect where tenants choose to rent and how they prepare when extreme weather events are predicted.
LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (“RPAPL) § 881 ACTIONS
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Files Lawsuit and Settles Emergency Case Providing Fortune 10 Company with Access to Repair Building While Accessing Neighbor’s Property
Adam
Leitman
Bailey
Brandon M. Zlotnick
A call came in that a building in Brooklyn had pieces falling off of it and was in danger of harming persons using a parking facility below next door. In order to repair the building, protective equipment was needed to secure the building and the parking spaces next door. The neighbor had a price they wanted to allow access but could not agree on a number of other items. Because the parking facility was being actively used while pieces of the building continued to fall at a greater frequency and the repairs could not be done in poor weather, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was thrown into emergency mode, immediately drafting an injunction, Order to Show Cause and a memorandum of law asking for emergency access into the parking facility to do necessary repairs. Within days we were assigned a judge and a court date, however, we visited the clerk to obtain an earlier date as we worried about bodily harm or death to innocent customers.
Legally, the hardest part of the case is that we were asking for the ultimate relief in our emergency application. So, we also sued in the Complaint for Article 881 asking for formal access onto their property to make repairs.
Thanksgiving weekend we received the call. An attorney for the parking facility owners was ready to allow us access after reading our papers. That weekend we negotiated all of the terms we needed to have the time and space to fix our building while having enough access so our job was not impeded by the amount of room we needed and the number of weeks, hours, and extensions when desired.
FORECLOSURES
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Wins a Case of First Impression Under FAPA, Protecting its Client’s Mortgage in a Murky Legal Climate for Lender’s Rights
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by a lender to navigate through the ever-changing foreclosure laws and save the lender’s ability to foreclose.
The lender’s foreclosure action was commenced in 2017. The lender moved for summary judgment, and the borrower cross-moved to dismiss, arguing that, per the Second Department’s holding in Bank of America, N.A. v. Kessler, 202 A.D.3d 10 (2d Dept. 2021) (hereinafter, “Kessler”), the 90 Day Notices served by the lender violated RPAPL § 1304 for containing additional disclosures outside of the statute. Since at the time the motion was decided Kessler was not yet overturned by the Court of Appeals, the Court was constrained to grant the borrower’s cross-motion and dismiss the case.
As the action commenced in 2017 and for other reasons, the lender was up against the statute of limitations on its right to foreclose the mortgage. That is when Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. stepped in. To protect the lender’s rights, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. commenced a second foreclosure action in 2023 just before the expiration of the statute of limitations.
By Opinion dated February 14, 2023, however, the Court of Appeals overturned Kessler, holding that “accurate statements that further the underlying statutory purpose of providing information to borrowers that is or may become relevant to avoiding foreclosure do not constitute an ‘other notice’…” and are permitted. Bank of America, N.A. v. Kessler, 39 N.Y.3d 317 (2023).
TITLE INSURANCE CLAIMS GROUP
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Quickly Secures Victory for Lender Facing Adverse Possession Claim
Adam Leitman Bailey
Danny Ramrattan
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was recently retained by a title company to represent a Lender’s interest in an adverse possession action in Queens. The Lender had commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage against the subject property which resulted in an auction taking place. However, before the closing of the sale could take place, a tenant of the subject property commenced an adverse possession action. As a result of the adverse possession action, there was a cloud on title, and the lender and purchaser could not close on the auction sale.
The tenant made meritless and incoherent claims of adverse possession, contending that mere lawful residency and employment on the property for the statutory time period qualified them to adversely possess the subject premises.
Once retained, and against the urgency of needing to close of the foreclosure sale, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. immediately moved for joinder under CPLR § 1001(a) and § 1002 on the grounds that any judgment would significantly impact the Lender’s secured interest as the mortgagee. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. concurrently moved to dismiss the Complaint on behalf of the Lender under CPLR § 3211(a)(1), § 3211(a)(3), and § 3211(a)(7).
In the joinder motion, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that the Lender must be joined as a necessary party because it held a mortgage secured by the Property that was subject to the adverse possession claim. Any judgment would directly impact the Lender’s ability to recover on its mortgage. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. further argued that the Lender had commenced a foreclosure action that had proceeded to a foreclosure auction, but Plaintiff’s adverse claim created a stain on title that prevented closing on the Property. Consequently, the Lender’s inclusion in this action was vital to protect its interests.
In the motion to dismiss, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. presented several legal arguments on behalf of the Lender. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that: (i) the Complaint should be dismissed because a corporation must be represented by counsel and Plaintiff filed pro se; (ii) Plaintiff failed to meet the claim of right requirement for adverse possession under the 2008 amendments by showing a reasonable basis for its belief in ownership; and (iii)
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. pointed to the recorded ACRIS documents establishing Plaintiff was on notice of the true owner and the Lender’s first mortgage lien. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. researched and analyzed the legislative history regarding the 2008 changes to New York’s adverse possession laws. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. showed how the amendments heightened the claim of right standard for adverse possessors to have a reasonable basis for their claim of ownership. Furthermore, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. obtained and submitted copies of ACRIS records such as the deed, title report, and mortgage showing the defect in Plaintiff’s claim.
The Court fully adopted Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s legal arguments made on behalf of the Lender and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. By obtaining dismissal, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. protected the Lender’s mortgage lien secured by the Property and prevented any stains on the title as the Lender completed sale of the foreclosed Property. Danny Ramrattan, Esq. at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. secured this result for its client.
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Preserves Six Million Dollars In Loans Made by Its Client
Jeffrey R. Metz
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Courtney J. Lerias
When the managing member of three real estate LLCs sought to refinance the existing senior debt, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client made loans totaling approximately six million dollars. There was also a mezzanine lender, whose agreement with the holding company for the LLCs, required its written permission for an activity such as a refinance. None was provided. Once the LLCs received and distributed the loan proceeds, the existing debt was retired, but the remainder, approximately 1.6 million dollars, went missing.
Through a series of transactions, the LLCs, which were actually controlled by the mezzanine lender, sued the managing member and others to recover the missing proceeds. While at it, the LLCs also claimed that because the loans were allegedly entered into without the requisite authorization, they were invalid and, consequently, they owed no money and the lender had no security interest in the properties.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. moved to dismiss the claim against its lender client, which, if unsuccessful, could have resulted in the loss of six million dollars and its security interest. At the trial level, the firm demonstrated that the lender received adequate documentation from the managing member that the LLCs were authorized to enter into the loans and, more importantly, that after having accepted the proceeds, the LLCs could not then turn around and disclaim any obligation under the loans.
Jeffrey R. Metz, Esq. represented the client before the Appellate Division First Department. Courtney J. Lerias, Esq. and Jackie Halpern Weinstein, Esq. represented the client before the Supreme Court.
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
Mission Impossible: Securing Almost 2 Million Dollars From a Convicted Felon to Payoff Claims Owed to Commercial Lender
In the life of a title litigator, you want to be challenged and have interesting cases where you are asked to use your best skills to prevail.
Adam Leitman Bailey
Colin E. Kaufm
INTERNET DEFAMATION / CRISIS MANAGEMENT
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevails in Defending Former Cooperative Board Members in a Defamation Action Using Amended Anti-SLAPP Statutes
In response to an action filed by a coop corporation against a former board member and one of its shareholders alleging that the defendants had defamed Board members by distributing newsletters and emails anonymously accusing the Board members of dishonesty and fraudulent conduct, one of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law § 70(a) and § 76(a), commonly known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation or SLAPP suit, as amended on November 10, 2020 (the “2020 Amendment”).
Bonnie Reid Berkow
SUPREME COURT LITIGATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevails on Motion for Summary Judgment Against Commercial Tenant in Supreme Court Ejectment Action Under RPAPL Article 6
Through creative lawyering, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. found yet another way to win for its client. In this matter, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was faced with a difficult situation while in midst of Covid—Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client, the landlord of a commercial property in Nassau County (the “Premises”), was at the mercy of its tenant (the “Tenant”). The Tenant—the owner and operator of a retail home improvement business that operated out of the Premises—breached its lease with Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client by performing an illegal alteration in the Premises. To make matters worse, the Tenant also fell back on rent, just a few months before Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client discovered the illegal alteration.
Carolyn Z. Rualo
William M. Pekarsky
Agency finds probable cause in discrimination suit against Bespoke
The New York State Division of Human Rights has found probable cause regarding a discrimination complaint filed by former Bespoke executive Jarret Willis against the brokerage and its founders, Cody and Zachary Vichinsky.
The investigation stems from a complaint Willis, who is Black, filed in February, in which he alleged that another employee addressed him by the N-word and that various employees referred to him as Jafar, the villain from “Aladdin,” in a derogatory manner.
Willis also alleges the word “kike,” an anti-Jewish slur, was frequently used at the firm’s Hamptons office and that the brokerage withheld from him hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Client Receives “Probable Cause” Ruling Determined after Failing to Pay Commissions Owed and Committing Unlawful Racial Discrimination
Adam Leitman Bailey
Brandon M. Zlotnick
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. succeeded in obtaining, for its client in a civil rights proceeding, a finding of probable cause that the client’s former employers, a high-end residential real estate brokerage company and two related companies, discriminated against the client in violation of New York state employment discrimination law.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. representing a real estate agent who formerly worked for a real estate company which specializes in the sale of properties for amounts greater than $10 million in the Hamptons, New York City, and South Florida. While employed by the Brokerage and two related companies from 2017 to 2022, our client, who is African American, was subjected to both a hostile work environment and discriminatory employment practices.
The hostile work environment included being addressed by racial epithets by his superiors, including two of the founding members of the Brokerage, as well as a lower-ranking coworker. Our client was also addressed unflatteringly as “Jafar,” the brown-skinned, manipulative villain in the “Aladdin” films, by the owners and other employees. In addition, owner verbally berated in other ways. Ultimately, the hostile work environment became too difficult for Mr. Willis to cope with, forcing his resignation.
Top 10 Most Influential Real Estate Litigation Lawyers in New York, 2023
In the world of commercial real estate, litigation is a common and inevitable facet. The diverse range of complexities, from tenant disputes to land use matters, necessitate the expertise of highly skilled litigators. In New York, home to some of the world’s most iconic real estate, we find attorneys who are at the top of their field in real estate litigation. This article focuses on some of these leading lawyers, their professional experience, and what peers and clients say about their competence and dedication.
With hundreds of legal minds navigating the waters of real estate litigation, what sets the following individuals apart is their impressive body of work, extensive experience, and the reputation they have built within the industry. Their expertise spans the gamut of real estate matters – be it luxury residential cases, landlord and tenant class action cases, or New York City land use matters.
Providing an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of New York’s complex real estate law framework and hands-on experience, these lawyers offer a broad range of services, often making the difference between success and failure in high-stake real estate litigation. Let’s dive deeper into their legacies and their contributions to the Real Estate Litigation industry in New York: Adam Leitman Bailey is a real estate litigator of high repute. His expertise particularly shines in complex landlord-tenant disputes. Clients value his thorough understanding of legal intricacies and his ability to effectively navigate them to achieve successful results.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Featured in Chambers Associate’s 2023 Guide and is Ranked in 5 Categories Nationwide in the 2023 Associate Satisfaction Survey
You’ll get a new lease of life at ALB, “the real estate boutique that everyone in New York knows.”
If the world of New York real estate was a game of Monopoly, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. would have its pieces spread across the board. “We have the biggest clients in the world, and we have some of the smallest,” eponymous founder Adam Leitman Bailey tells us. “We do the biggest and most exciting cases with the most interesting results.” Contrary to the size of its massive clientele – made up of some of the top Fortune 100 companies – the firm houses fewer than 30 attorneys. The firm also has a much smaller focus than its Big Apple peers, something which drew our interviewees to the firm: “If you want to be a real property attorney, Adam Leitman Bailey focuses and specializes in just that. You don’t have to do other things, so it’s a great firm for those who want to focus.”
TESTIMONIALS
TESTIMONIAL OF THE YEAR
We asked our attorneys and staff to choose the number one testimonial of the year which enlightened them more than the others. This was the winner.
“Adam is brilliant. Adam thinks outside the box. Adam doesn’t give up; he goes to war for you.” - M.F.
“Rosemary and her team are amazing. They made me feel confident in them, which made me extremely comfortable for the entire process. They were professional, extremely knowledgeable and always responsive.”
“It is an honor to know you. I appreciate the wonderful work your firm does. Wishing you and the members of your law firm all the best, always!”
Supreme Court Judge in New York
“One of my favorite guys from my days as a reporter for the Real Deal. Wanna win your RE case? He’s the man!”
J.N.B.
“I cannot be happier for my shareholders– they have received superb legal counsel.”
J.A.L.
“Adam Leitman Bailey – I am always thinking of you and very appreciative of all you have done for me and my family. Thank you for your kind words. I hold you in high regards, always.”
P.R.
“Happy Thanksgiving Adam. Because of you I have hope that everyday will be brighter than the one before. Thank you for protecting my family and fighting for us. I love you pal and I will NEVER be able to express how much what you are doing means to me.”
J.W.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.'s 24th Anniversary
