SUMMER 2025 NEWSLETTER
MENU
Lawful Source of Income Anti-Discrimination Laws as Applied to Rentals
-84f7ef4c82f1bdb91065560d1d45d14df5ebcc83.png?v=02262024142437){kind=logo}
Both New York State and New York City, as well as other municipalities within New York State, have laws on the books that prohibit discrimination by owners and managers of housing accommodations against prospective tenants based on the source of the tenants’ income.
The New York State and New York City versions of these laws comprise part of the civil rights statutes of New York State and New York City. New York State’s general anti-discrimination statute appears at Sections 290-301 of the New York Executive Law (the “New York State Human Rights Law,” or “NYSHRL”), with the provisions barring discrimination in housing accommodations appearing in Section 296, Paragraph 5(a) of that statute. New York City’s general civil rights statute appears in Title 8 of the New York City Administrative Code of the New York City Administrative Code (the “Code”) (the “New York City Human Rights Law,” or “NYCHRL”), with the provisions barring discrimination in housing accommodations appearing in Code §8-107(5)(a).
Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL prohibit multiple forms of discrimination on the basis of numerous characteristics, and each of them includes “lawful source of income” as one such characteristic. At the outset, both statutes define “lawful source of income” as including federal, state, or local governmental housing subsidies, and expressly including “section 8 vouchers,” N.Y. Executive Law §292(36); Code §8-102, i.e., vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, otherwise known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program, see People by James v. Commons West, LLC, 80 Misc. 3d 447, 448 (Sup. Ct. Cortland County 2023), adhered to on renewal, _____ Misc. 3d _____, 224 N.Y.S.3d 364 (Sup. Ct. Cortland County 2024); Housing Rights Initiative v. Corcoran Group LLC, No. 154010/2022, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30596(U), 2024 WL 776827, at *1 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Feb. 26, 2024) (“Corcoran Group”).
Other types of housing subsidies falling within “lawful sources of income” include, among others, CityFHEPs (City Fighting Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement) vouchers issued by the City of New York, see Olivierre v. Parkchester Preservation Co., No. 452058/2022, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 34471(U), 2022 WL 18456529, at *1-3
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. County July 29, 2022); Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. Beach Haven Apartments Associates LLC, No. 525173/22, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30790(U), 2024 WL 1076110, at *2 (Sup. Ct. Kings County Feb. 29, 2024); and the Olmstead Housing Subsidy (“OHS”) and the New York City HIV/AIDS Services Administration (“HASA”) rental subsidy, see Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. Pelican Management, Inc., 18-cv-1564 (ER) (OTW), 2023 WL 6390159, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2023) (“Pelican Management”), aff’d, 23-7348-cv, 2025 WL 251723 (2d Cir. Jan. 21, 2025).
The NYSHRL and NYCHRL each prohibit four types of acts, although the precise wording varies between the two:
1. Outright refusal to sell, rent, or lease the housing accommodation, or otherwise deny or withhold the housing accommodation, based on a person’s lawful source of income. N.Y. Executive Law §296(5)(a)(1); Code §8-107(5)(1)(a). This would include, for example, a landlord’s outright refusal to accept a legitimate Section 8 voucher. See Florentino v. Nokit Realty Corp., 29 Misc. 3d 190, 196 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2010).
2. Representation to any person that any housing accommodation is not available for inspection, sale, rental, or lease when, in fact, it is available. See N.Y. Executive Law §296(5)(a)(1); Code §8-107(5)(1)(c). This would include, for example, an assertion by a landlord to a Section 8 voucher holder that there are no available units to rent, when, in fact, there are available units.
3. Discrimination against any person, because of such person’s lawful source of income, in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale, rental, or lease of any such housing accommodation. See N.Y. Executive Law §296(5)(a)(2); Code §8-107(5)(1)(b). This would include, for example, a landlord imposing additional requirements upon applicants holding Section 8 vouchers, that it does not impose on persons not holding such vouchers, such as requiring them to fill out an application prior to viewing an apartment, or not following up with prospective tenants with vouchers as it does with tenants paying solely by income. See Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. Fairstead Management LLC, No. 952363/2023, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 33325(U), 2024 WL 4241603, at *8 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Sep. 19, 2024
4. Printing or circulating any statement, advertisement, or publication, or using any form of application for the purchase, rental, or lease of such housing accommodation, or making any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, rental or lease of such housing accommodation which expresses, directly or directly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to lawful source of income, or any intent to make such limitation, specification, or discrimination. N.Y. Executive Law §296(5)(a)(3); Code §8-107(5)(2). This would include, for example, a landlord’s real estate broker or agent informing a prospective applicant who asks whether the landlord accepts vouchers, that the landlord does not accept vouchers. See Newson v. Vivaldi Real Estate Ltd., ___ A.D.3d ___, 226 N.Y.S. 3d 6, 8, 14 (1st Dep’t 2025) (holding that such allegations, as against landlord’s real estate agent, stated a claim against landlord under NYCHRL).
Application of this statute can be problematic in the case of applicants for apartment rentals who receive housing assistance, including but not limited to Section 8 vouchers. It is standard procedure for landlords to require that applicants generate an income that is a certain multiple of the monthly rent; often, this minimum-income requirement is set as forty (40) times the monthly rent. Such a minimum-income requirement is imposed in order to confirm that the applicant is receiving sufficient income that s/he will be able to afford to pay rent throughout the rental term, were the applicant to be accepted as a tenant.
Partly, this is due to the existence of two alternate theories of proving liability under civil rights laws. One of these is disparate treatment, wherein the plaintiff must show intentional discrimination, in which, under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, “the plaintiff need only show differential treatment—that [a class] is treated ‘less well’ –because of a discriminatory intent.” See Corcoran Group, 2024 WL 776827, at *2 (quoting Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Chevreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 110 (2d Cir. 2013)) (alterations in Corcoran Group).
However, a tenant may not be qualified to receive a housing subsidy in the first place if s/he receives an income in excess of a certain amount. See Corcoran Group, 2024 WL 776827, at *3 (reciting that complaint of lawful-source-of-income discrimination alleged that to be eligible for Housing Choice Vouchers, a one-person household’s annual income could not exceed $41,800, a two-person household’s annual income could not exceed $47,750, and a three-person household’s annual income could not exceed $53,700, each of which amounts was less than $72,000 minimum income necessary to rent $1,800-per-month apartment under requirement that income be 40 times the monthly rent); Olivierre, 2022 WL 18456529, at *1-2 (recounting plaintiff’s allegations that she had a CityFHEPs voucher, eligibility for which required a gross annual household income no greater than $46,060, whereas owner of property where she wished to reside required her to show a minimum annual income of $62,000).
Ordinarily, one might expect that circumstance to be the end of the matter: the limited income of the applicant that renders him/her eligible for the voucher, also disqualifies the applicant from residence at the desired property. However, some trial-level courts in New York State, both in state and federal courts, have held that the imposition of a minimum-income requirement upon voucher recipients is a violation of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. This is true even if the landlord applies the same minimum-income requirement to both voucher recipients and non-voucher recipients alike.
.png?v=02262024130809){kind=logo}
One of the Bedrocks of Real Estate Transfers: The Statute of Limitations Cannot Be Extended By State Courts in New York
In their article, Adam Leitman Bailey and Jeffrey Metz discuss how, in New York, courts generally lack the authority to extend statutes of limitations, with only narrow exceptions permitting tolling which reinforces the importance of timely legal action in real estate matters.
Real estate markets require certainty. Lenders, developers, and all real estate actors require certainty to trust the market to make intelligent decisions and rely on these decisions and be able to sell these decisions to investors and the public at large.
Market parties from the largest lender to the first-time home buyer all rely on our courts, indirectly, when giving out a loan to make a purchase—that the law will be followed so their investments will be as safe as possible.
Rash or harmful legislative decisions, such as the State Legislature has signed by the Governor in July of 2019, have resulted in incredible monetary losses and harm to both landlords and tenants, and countless jobs lost for workers.
Thankfully, the New York Courts, from the local villages to the Court of Appeals, have upheld the law, and New York has been able to survive such an onslaught and many business persons continue to revitalize New York real estate.
On very few occasions in the past year, one of the most sacrosanct laws, the Statute of Limitations, has been extended without party consent by courts, at least temporarily. Knowing when a party’s ability to sue ends allows for proper planning, facilitates decision making, and promotes business prosperity because of the certainty and belief in our legal system.
States all over the country choose New York as their preferred state for choice of law provisions because of the quality of our court system and its decisions since we became a democracy. And one of those bedrocks that allows real estate to transfer with confidence is that only the Legislature, with Constitutional limitations, can amend a statute’s expiration of its time to sue.
The Court of Appeals has explained that Statutes of Limitation are “designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have failed, and witnesses have disappeared.” Blanco v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 90 N.Y.2d 757, 773 (2000) quoting from Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U.S.342, 348-349 (1944).
For practicing attorneys, recognizing when the statute of limitations for a particular matter is about to run is always of utmost importance because missing the applicable period will likely form an immutable barrier to the prosecution of a client’s action, and open the door to a claim for legal malpractice.
This article will examine the limited circumstances where a statute of limitations can be tolled and whether a court can provide attorneys with a life preserver by extending a statute of limitations.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevents Client's Premature Eviction from Rented Townhouse and Also Prevents Client from Paying Substantial Damages Under Purchase Contract for the Townhouse
John M. Desiderio
Client’s dilemma stemmed from Client having previously requested to adjourn several prior scheduled Closing dates, due to the failure of Client’s investors to pay their subscriptions in a timely manner. As a result, before granting its consent for the latest adjournment, Townhouse Owner, as both Landlord and Seller, had demanded that Client sign certain unconscionably stringent agreements which essentially required Client to confess judgment in the amount of the purchase contract deposit, and waive all possible legal defenses to an action of eviction brought in New York City Civil Court, if Client did not timely close under the Contract of Sale for the Premises on the scheduled Time Is Of The Essence Closing Date.
Client’s transactional counsel and Townhouse Owner Landlord/Seller’s counsel engaged in a series of email communications, prior to the scheduled Time Is Of The Essence Closing Date of December 31, 2023, in which Townhouse Owner Landlord/Seller’s counsel, recognizing that December 31st was a Saturday, first offered to close on the sale on Friday, December 30, 2023. counsel then set Tuesday, January 3, 2024, as the new Closing Date. Client’s transactional counsel advised Townhouse Owner Landlord/Seller’s counsel that Client would be “unable to close this transaction on January 3, 2024, but nevertheless, Purchaser fully intends to fulfill his obligations under the contract, . . . [but] [h]e anticipates that the closing can take place this April, . . . [and] Purchaser . . . intends to continue to pay rent and other expenses relating to the premises pursuant to his lease as he has in the past and will advise you as soon as he is able to close.”
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Overcomes Son’s Succession Claim and Wins Holdover Proceeding and Monetary Judgment for Landlord After Trial
Vladimir Mironenko
Representing a New York City landlord in a licensee holdover proceeding against the son of a deceased tenant of record, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., won a bench trial and achieved a judgment of possession and money.
The tenant of record died in 2021. Our client bought the Queens building in 2023. At that time, the apartment was occupied by the deceased tenant’s son. He was not paying rent, and an investigation revealed that he may not have co-resided with his father before his father’s death.
We served the son a notice to quit to a licensee and commenced a holdover proceeding. The son appeared and interposed a succession defense. We moved for and were granted discovery. He produced virtually no documents, and we moved for and won a conditional preclusion order, precluding him from introducing any documents at trial which were not produced during discovery.
The trial took place over several days in March 2025.
The prior owner of the building testified on our behalf that he knew the father well, that the son grew up in the apartment but moved out years ago, and that the son only moved into the apartment after the father died. An agent of the current owner rounded out our prima facie case.
The son testified in the narrative and called several family members as witnesses on his behalf, including his sister and mother. The mother testified that she co-resided with the tenant of record, but was impeached with subpoenaed leases and other records showing that she was the tenant of record, and maintained a Con Edison account in her own name elsewhere, and also equivocated about the son’s whereabouts during the relevant time period. The mother also listed the other address for herself as the informant on the tenant’s death certificate.
We also subpoenaed the tenant’s DRIE records, which showed that the tenant claimed that he lived alone.
On rebuttal, we called a longstanding building resident who dispassionately and credibly testified that he knew the family well, including the son, that the son moved out of the apartment years ago, and that the father lived alone for several years before he died.
The judge found our witnesses highly credible and found that the son failed to establish his burden of proof to prove succession rights to the apartment.
The judge directed issuance of a judgment of possession and warrant of eviction for our client. The judge also awarded to our client a monetary judgment for use and occupancy from the time of our client’s purchase of the building through the trial.
Carolyn Rualo represented the client from inception of the proceeding and in trial preparation and Vladimir Mironenko conducted the trial.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Successfully Prevents a Borrower From Delaying Entry of Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale
After successfully prosecuting a foreclosure action and obtaining summary judgment in favor of its client, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. brought a motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale – the last and what should be the simplest step in the foreclosure process before a lender can auction a mortgaged property. However, borrowers often engage in various delay tactics to prolong the foreclosure process. This case was no different.
Here, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. filed its motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale with a statement pursuant to CPLR 2214(b) requiring that opposition papers be served at least seven days before the return date so as to ensure the right to reply and address any potential misstatements of law or fact made by the borrower in an effort to dissuade the Court from entering judgment against her. However, despite getting an extension of time from the Court, the borrower completely disregarded her deadline and late-filed opposition papers after the close of business on the return date of the motion, thus preventing Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. from filing a reply to address the borrower’s meritless arguments in opposition to the motion. As a result, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. filed a statement of rejection of the borrower’s late-filed papers and requested that the Court refuse to consider her opposition.
Instead of disregarding the borrower’s opposition or adjourning the motion to allow Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. an opportunity to reply, the Court inappropriately denied Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s motion solely based on misrepresentations made by the borrower in her late-filed opposition, to which Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was not afforded the right to reply, despite its diligence.
Specifically, the entire basis for denial of the motion was the borrower’s entirely incorrect argument that Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. purportedly failed to comply with the Court’s directive that plaintiff “provide the referee and defendants who have appeared, all papers and documents necessary for the referee to perform the determinations required by this order [and computing the amounts due and owing to plaintiff that were to be included in the judgment of foreclosure and sale].”
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. did, however, serve the borrower with all such papers. And because Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. is fully familiar with these meritless arguments made by borrowers to delay the foreclosure process, as a matter of course, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. always maintains affidavits of service and proofs of delivery from UPS, confirming all required papers are served in accordance with the Court’s orders.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was therefore able to quickly jump into action and bring a motion to reargue the denial of its motion for judgment of foreclosure and sale. In that motion, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. pointed to controlling case law that provides reargument is appropriate when a moving party is deprived of its right to address arguments and/or misstatements of fact on reply, as was the case here. Then, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. provided the Court with all documentation it maintained in its possession to demonstrate that it fully complied with the Court’s order and served the borrower with all of the documentation provided to the court-appointed referee to compute the amounts due and owing to the plaintiff for the judgment of foreclosure and sale.
Recognizing its error in originally denying Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s first motion based on meritless arguments made in the borrower’s late-filed opposition, the Court granted Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s motion to reargue, and upon reargument, granted the foreclosing lender judgment of foreclosure and sale.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s foreclosure expertise and record keeping diligence allowed it to achieve a favorable result for its client.
Jackie Halpern Weinstein, Esq., and Courtney J. Lerias, Esq., of the Foreclosure Litigation Group at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully prevented this borrower from delaying its client from exercising its rights.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secures Writ of Assistance For Condominium Board After Common Charge Foreclosure
Danny Ramrattan
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by a condominium board related to a unit owner, who, in addition to not paying his common charges, was also violating the governing documents of the condominium by illegally offering his unit for short-term rentals. The unit owner – an attorney himself – was trying to engage in all different types of legal manoeuvres to frustrate the board and profit off the unit.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to get injunctive relief against the unit owner, preventing him from engaging in short-term rentals of the unit.
Thereafter, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. moved forward with the foreclosure action, ultimately being awarded foreclosure and sale, and then scheduling the action for auction.
Despite repeated attempts by the unit owner to file for bankruptcy, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to move forward with the foreclosure auction, which ultimately resulted in the board being the winning bidder.
After the unit was legally transferred to the board, the former unit owner refused to remove his belongings from the unit.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., prepared a motion for a writ of assistance in the foreclosure action, which was granted by the Court. The Court directed the sheriff to remove the former unit owner and his belongings from the unit and then place the board in possession.
Danny Ramrattan, Esq. of the Litigation Group at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., secured this result for the board.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Defeats Motion to Dismiss Petition for Dissolution of Real Estate Holding Company
In a heated disputed between two members of a real estate holding company, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. successfully defended their client’s petition against a procedural motion to dismiss, thereby leaving only respondent’s baseless merits arguments.
The LLC at issue was originally formed in 2013 between petitioner and respondent to purchase and manage a commercial property, with both parties holding 50% interests and respondent acting as the managing partner. Unfortunately, the relationship between the parties quickly became contentious, with respondent refusing to provide information to petitioner, including important financial information. Respondent also completely disregarded both petitioner’s input and corporate requirements, including unilaterally deciding to obtain an additional mortgage on the property without consulting petitioner. Even when it became clear that the parties wanted to go their separate ways, respondent’s autocratic style thwarted consummation of a deal that would remove petitioner from the company.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. filed a petition seeking, among other things, for respondent to finally provide petitioner with a full and complete accounting of the company, for the property to be sold, and for a receiver to take over that sale, or to have the company liquidated.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on purely procedural grounds, which Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. vigorously opposed. The Court agreed with Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. and found for petitioner very quickly, leaving respondent to fight only on the merits. Given the strength of petitioner’s arguments on the merits, this is a substantial victory, and Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. is excited to have the opportunity to assist this client to escape this dysfunctional business relationship.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Fights to Recover Property from Baseless Rent Control Succession Claims
Ben Rose
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. is on the verge of securing a landlord’s property over hotly contested, false claims of succession by the former rent-controlled tenant’s grandson. After three days of trial with 12 claimant witnesses in play, final closings are set so that, as appears inevitable, the Court can finally reject claimant’s specious assertions and vindicate the landlord’s rights.
Claimant’s grandmother was a longtime rent-stabilized tenant in landlord’s building, where her other family members also lived in other apartments. When the grandmother-tenant passed away and the apartment was set to revert to the landlord, one of her grandsons suddenly claimed that he had been living with her in the subject apartment for the statutorily required time, such that he was a successor to the rent-stabilized apartment. Evidence indicated, however, that he had actually lived in the grandmother’s family’s other apartment in the building the entire time. At his deposition, the grandson testified under oath that he had lived there with his grandmother, and that his brother, the tenant’s other grandson, had at no time lived with him and his grandmother in the apartment. The grandson passed away shortly thereafter, and, out of the blue, his brother came forward for the first time to claim that he had also lived with his grandmother, such that he was now a successor to the rent-stabilized apartment.
Thorough investigation revealed, however, that numerous DMV, voting, police and other records listed the new claimant-grandson had never listed the subject apartment as his residence during the statutory period, and further, that he had only changed his address in records after his brother died and claimant had entered the succession litigation. Additionally, over claimant’s objections that continued through trial, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to corner claimant into predicate testimony and then persuade the Court that the deceased brother’s deposition testimony – swearing that the claimant had not lived there – would come into evidence. Aggressive cross-examination forced claimant to reveal numerous false statements in his testimony that severely damaged his credibility – including an admission that he had lived in his family’s other apartment – before opposing counsel ineffectively attempted to “correct” the record.
In the face of fraudulent claims threatening the landlord’s property and business, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. undertook an in-depth investigation and analysis, then developed a focused trial strategy that paved the way for overwhelmingly compelling witness and evidentiary presentations at trial. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., anticipates a complete vindication of the landlord’s rights just as soon as the final day of trial is concluded in the coming weeks.
Ben Rose of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. is the trial lawyer in this matter. Colin E. Kaufman did the initial investigation.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Wins Trial and $100,000 Monetary and Possessory Judgment in Residential Non-Payment Case, Overcoming Laches and Breach of Warranty of Habitability Defenses
Vladimir Mironenko
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., achieved complete victory in a hard-fought Manhattan Housing Court non-payment proceeding, winning a bench trial and obtaining a greater than $100,000 monetary and possessory judgment for its landlord client, while defeating the tenant’s laches and breaches of warranty of habitability defenses.
Representing the landlord-owner of a Manhattan condominium apartment housing a grandfathered-in rent-stabilised tenant, we brought a non-payment proceeding against a highly litigious tenant, who had been litigating with prior owners of the unit and refusing to pay rent for decades.
The tenant’s counsel raised a myriad of affirmative defenses and counterclaims, which included overcharge, illegal rent, constructive eviction, harassment, laches, breaches of warranty of habitability, and others.
The case began in 2018 and included several highly contested motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and for partial summary judgment. We prevailed on the motions, resulting in the dismissal of all of the tenant’s defenses and counterclaims except for laches and warranty of habitability, which were preserved for trial.
The tenant argued that the landlord waited too long to commence the proceeding after purchasing the unit, and that various conditions in the apartment, including installations allegedly performed without Department of Building approvals, constituted a breach of the warranty of habitability, entitling the tenant to a complete rent defense or at least a significant abatement of rent.
At trial, we aggressively cross-examined the tenant’s witnesses, including an architect designated as an expert. We argued that the tenant failed to meet his burden to establish all of the elements of laches, including prejudice, and that the tenant was engaged in litigation in another forum and in settlement discussions, all of which defeat laches.
We also argued that the tenant contributed to or caused the apartment conditions of which he complained about, that the landlord timely fixed any required conditions, and that the tenant failed to demonstrate any diminution of value of the apartment or any effect of any alleged conditions upon him.
The judge dismissed the tenant’s remaining defenses after trial and awarded our client judgment for the rent sought, which we then collected in full for our client.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Partner, Vladimir Mironenko, represented the landlord from the inception of the proceeding, at trial, and at post-trial proceedings.
Phony Tenants Evicted
Dov A Treiman
In a building with tax breaks dependent on tenants meeting certain income limits, several tenants conspired with an outside screening agent to phony up their income records along with their placement on the waiting list for the building. Through this scheme, they got their apartments. However, the Attorney General’s Office became aware of this scheme and insisted that the landlord remove these tenants on pain of the landlord losing its tax breaks. Therefore, the landlord came to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. looking for means to evict these tenants and sue the criminal screening agent.
Examining the various laws, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. became convinced that none of the ordinary eviction statutes used in Housing Court were going to get rid of these tenants. Housing Court is meant for people who violate their leases, not for people who were not entitled to get a lease in the first place. So, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. put together a strategy where the State Supreme Court would declare the leases void and of no effect and the tenants should therefore be evicted by the County Sheriff rather than a City Marshal.
There were three apartments involved. One tenant caved in almost immediately and the Sheriff put the landlord in possession of that apartment. However, the other tenants fought bitterly and took full advantage of the Court’s inclination to give them every kind of break it could.
One tenant even claimed that her right against self-incrimination exempted her from the lawsuit’s requirements altogether. So, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had to put together an education for the tenant and the court on the limits of this constitutional privilege. The court accepted Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s argument and had that tenant evicted as well.
A third tenant tried convincing the court that because she was a student and trying to improve her life that she should be forgiven for the improper manner in which she acquired her apartment.
However, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was working hand in glove with the Attorney General’s Office and made it clear to the Court that keeping this apartment for an undeserving tenant was keeping it away from one who really did qualify and really did need the help.
The Court then ordered her eviction as well, but there remained the possibility that any appeal she might take would reach a more sympathetic ear with the appellate court. Therefore, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to convince her that if the landlord gave her enough time to gather her effects, she could avoid eviction, but she would also have to waive all rights of appeal.
The Attorney General was satisfied with all these solutions.
The case was decided on papers alone, prepared by Solomon Chouicha and Dov Treiman.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Extracts Generous Buy-Out Payment for Manhattan Dental Practice from Landlord with Building in Receivership
A great lawyer knows when not to litigate. Oftentimes a commercial tenant in a failing building is left with little choice but to either suffer through reduced services or litigate for damages when things further deteriorate. However, with the right counsel, such a seemingly desperate situation can turn into a profitable opportunity, as one of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. ’s clients recently discovered. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. ’s client, who is part of a successful high end Manhattan dentistry practice, originally engaged the Firm to address issues with his landlord’s diminished services. The dental practice had invested nearly $1 million in building out its practice and had four years left on its lease; but everything was not going smoothly as the landlord was strapped for cash and looking to sell the building. Our client wanted out of the lease and out of the building with some cash in return for its original investment.
Although Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. immediately recognized that this was not a situation that would be easily resolved by litigation, we took an aggressive stance with landlord’s counsel, making it clear from the start that its choices were very limited: buy out our client, or suffer a litigation that would severely complicate its potential sale of the building. These were, of course, not idle threats as Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. regularly – and very successfully – litigates claims for loss of services and potential constructive eviction in similar situations.
After months of complicated negotiations, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to secure an extraordinarily favorable deal for our client: in exchange for a $500,000 payout from the landlord, the dental practice would be released from its lease, with 16 months before leaving to secure and build out a new practice at another location. However, even with this mutually beneficial situation, complications arose that Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. deftly rebuffed for our client: our client had already secured a new lease when the landlord’s financial instability left it unable to pay its creditors, and the building was put into court-appointed receivership with the very real prospect that our client’s payout would fall into a line of creditors taking pennies on the dollar, if anything.
However, as is often the case, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. had an excellent relationship and reputation with the receiver; and over the course of many months of discussions, the Firm was able to get the receiver to recognize the validity of the buy-out and work with the firm and the landlord to prioritize our client’s situation, with the receiver consistently emphasizing the work of our firm on behalf of our client. Finally, after many months of further negotiations, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was able to secure a payout from the landlord for our client that, while a reduction from the original amount, guaranteed a substantial cash payment, in addition to forgiveness of more than $65,000 in back rent, without the need to join a list of creditors fighting for scraps. Thanks to the tireless work of our legal team, our client’s practice is flourishing in a beautiful new location, away from its prior troubles, and with the prior landlord’s money already earning interest in the bank.
Adam Leitman Bailey and Eric S. Askanase negotiated this successful resolution as part of their work in Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. ’s supreme court practice group.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Defeats a Post-Eviction Order to Show Cause and Secured a Mitchell-Lama Coop’s Right to Recover Possession of a Unit
Our client is a Mitchell-Lama Coop in Brooklyn, several of the residents are elderly and are holocaust survivors. We commenced a nonpayment eviction proceeding in Brooklyn Housing Court in November 2022, and we were able to secure a final judgment against the shareholder in May 2024. Thereafter, the shareholder’s guardian ad litem and daughter filed orders to show to stay the execution of the eviction warrant. A New York City Marshal was finally able to execute the warrant on June 6, 2025. The shareholder’s daughter then filed a post-eviction Order to Show Cause to be restored to possession, claiming that she was applying to withdraw money from her 401k and additional financial assistance to satisfy the arrears. We were notified of the filing on a Friday evening at around 10:30 p.m., and the Court scheduled an appearance for the following Monday at 9:30 a.m. We were able to get the Court to reschedule the appearance to Monday afternoon. At the appearance, we opposed the shareholder’s motion, arguing that the shareholder had ample opportunities to apply for financial assistance, the shareholder presented no evidence that she applied for financial assistance, and to restore the shareholder to possession would be it inequitable and unjust to the other shareholders. Following oral argument, the Court denied the shareholder’s Order to Show Cause.
Solomon Chouicha represented the client in this case.
Coop Estate Requirements
Our firm represents several Coop buildings in New York City in connection with closing the sales of their units. When the seller of a unit is the shareholder’s estate, we are often asked for coop estate requirements to sell. Here is a brief but thorough summary of what most coops will require.
To begin, an original death certificate for the decedent is required for review.
Next, we will request to see a copy of the stock certificate and proprietary lease allocated to the subject unit and confirmation both originals will be delivered to closing for cancellation. We will review both documents to determine if the deceased had a tenant by the entirety or a tenant with rights of survivorship who is alive and a party to the sale. If so, the next additional requirements are not needed. If not, we will proceed to request the following items.
A certified copy of the decedent’s will (if there is one) must be reviewed by coop counsel to confirm if the deceased’s will aligns with the method of the proposed sale.
A Federal Release of Estate Tax Lien Waiver is also required for review. In instances where an Estate is below the threshold, a List of Assets Inventory may be acceptable in its place.
A New York State Release of Estate Tax Lien (Form ET 117) is required. This may be obtained from the NYS Dept. of Taxation and Finance.
Improving the License Agreement for a Construction Project for a Condominium
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained by the Board of Managers of a large residential condominium (“Condominium”) in Manhattan to negotiate a license agreement for work mandated by the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”) to its building, after negotiations with current counsel failed.
NY Real Property Law § 339-ee
NY Real Property Law § 339-ee allows for a tax credit to developers of condominiums. When a sponsor is developing a condominium they will pay a mortgage tax on the underlying construction or blanket mortgage that is used to develop and build the condominium. Purchasers will receive a credit for the mortgage tax paid by the developer when they purchase the condominium units. Purchasers of the units can be contractually obligated by the developer to return the tax credit to them.
Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. Obtains Summary Judgment Ruling Dismissing Complaint Seeking Payment Of Exterminator Fees Where No Contract Was Shown To Exist To Provide Authority For Such Payment
Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. represents a Coop corporation in Queens, New York. When a new Board was elected, it conducted an investigation of the books and records maintained by the prior managing agent. The Board questioned the exterminating service, which had billed the Corporation over $2 million over a number of years for termite and other exterminating services. When the exterminating service failed to provide any detailed information as to the exterminating services alleged to have been performed, the Board refused to pay the last few invoices issued by the exterminating company, and the exterminating company sued.
Vault Places Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. as The Sixth Best Midsize Law Firm to Work For in the US for 2026
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Joins Vault’s Top 150 Under 150 List as One of the Best Midsize Law Firm to Work For.
To determine the Top 150 Under 150, Vault first developed a list of the best-known and most sought-after U.S. firms with 150 attorneys or fewer. Our editorial and research teams pored through Vault survey data, news stories, trade journals, and other legal publications; spoke with lawyers in the field; and reviewed other published rankings. Vault editors also assessed each firm for prestige, quality of life, and professional growth opportunities and then narrowed down the results to come up with a list of 150 law firms known for providing top-notch service and delivering big results.
About Vault Law
Vault Law, an Infobase company, is the most comprehensive and trusted resource for law students and laterals to research law firms, delivering the insider perspective and essential information that candidates need to make successful career decisions.
Vault ‘Quality Of Life’ Rankings: The Best Midsize Law Firms To Work For (2026)
Vault recently published the 2026 edition of all manner of its closely watched rankings for the largest law firms in the country, proving that money — in the form of Cravath’s perennially competitive pay scale — can buy prestig and (sometimes) happiness.
But what about the nation’s midsized and regional firms? Which ones are the best to work for, and will young associates be happy there as associates? Today, Vault released the latest edition of its list of the 25 Best Midsize Law Firms to Work For.
Associates at firms with 200 attorneys or fewer were asked to rank their own law firms based on categories most relevant to their overall quality of life, including overall satisfaction; firm culture; hours; compensation; quality of work; informal training, mentorship, and sponsorship; business outlook; career outlook; associate/partner relations; leadership transparency; and formal training.
Legal expertise alone isn’t enough. Today’s most successful firms invest in developing the skills that drive collaboration, leadership, and business growth. Our on-demand, customizable training modules deliver practical, high-impact learning for attorneys and staff—when and where they need it.
There was a great deal of movement in the Top 10 this year. Which firms made the cut? Without any further ado, here are the Top 10 Best Midsize Law Firms to Work For (Opens in a new window) based on Vault’s Annual Associate Survey for 2026:
1. Elsberg Baker & Maruri
2. Reid Collins & Tsai
2. Bookoff McAndrews
4. Harrity & Harrity
5. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson
6. Adam Leitman Bailey
7. Oliva Gibbs
8. Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell
9. Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila
10. Stotler Hayes
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Has Been Ranked for Real Estate in the the Chambers New York Spotlight Guide for 2025
Adam Leitman Bailey Has Been Ranked for the 14th Year in a Row by Chamber's and Partners for Real Estate Litigation
Adam Leitman Bailey Named America’s Top 100 Bet-the-Company Litigators for 2025
“He was a miracle worker for us. He saved my husband because the stress that he was under was extremely taxing on him and literally destroying him. I would say Adam saved him and gave him his life back” – Dale Silver, the Candy Man’s Widow
Danny Ramrattan Was Featured on the Lawyers Who Cares Podcast
Maya Akselrod Receives the 2025 Raymond “Hap” Harrison Scholarship
Since the Raymond “Hap” Harrison Scholarship began, Adam has awarded scholarships to 34 students, totaling nearly a million dollars. The stories of all of these winners can be found at buildingfoundationsanddreams.com
Each of these individuals also received paid internships at Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. during their junior year. Some of their careers today have included clerking for the New Jersey Supreme Court, becoming a doctor through AmeriCorps, attending law school, becoming teachers—the list goes on.
The charity is self-funded with love and a passion for helping those like himself.
This past week, Maya, a senior at New Milford High School received the Raymond “Hap” Harrison Scholarship. The scholarship is named after Adam Leitman Bailey’s Track and Cross Country Coach in High School, who he credits much of his success, in regards to not only running but to what he has accomplished in his career. Maya was chosen out of all New Milford High School students by the Guidance Department to be a paid intern at Adam Leitman Bailey. She will be attending Binghamton University and majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Law on a pre-law track.
Retiring administrator of New Milford High School, Dave Wilson, speaks about Adam Leitman Bailey at the New Milford awards night.
"He fights for the underdog, he fights for people who really are maybe not able to to fund the fights themselves. He takes on those types of fights and he represents those types of people"