test
SUMMER 2024 NEWSLETTER
MENU
FORECLOSURE LITIGATION GROUP
Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act in a Nutshell
Adam Leitman Bailey
John M. Desiderio
-86b6dfb5b25a2ab3fc2b5612a12de3a3300c5e82.png?v=05282024155145){kind=logo}
In 2022, the New York State Legislature enacted the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), thereby amending several interrelated provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL), and the General Obligations Law (GOL), which affect how and when the statute of limitations may be invoked by defaulting borrowers to defeat foreclosure actions brought against them by their lenders.
This article will examine the background leading to the FAPA legislative amendments and how they have been construed, in recent Appellate Division decisions, where courts have been required to determine their application.
Background
FAPA was enacted to reverse the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Engel, 37 NY3d 1 (2021), in which, the court seeing a “need for clarity and consistency,” in the “application of the statute of limitations,” to the “timeliness” of bringing “a mortgage foreclosure claim” that “[affects] real property ownership,” had adopted “a clear rule” holding that “where the maturity of the debt has been validly accelerated by commencement of a foreclosure action, the noteholder’s voluntary withdrawal of that action revokes the election to accelerate, absent the noteholder’s contemporaneous statement to the contrary.” (Emphasis added).
The court’s ruling had the effect of extending the statute of limitations well beyond the six-year statute of limitations that would otherwise limit a lender’s right to foreclose and elect to accelerate the maturity of the debt on a borrower’s second loan default.
The Legislature saw Freedom Mortgage as one of a series of court decisions that had “exacerbated” an “ongoing problem with abuses of the judicial foreclosure process and lenders’ attempts to manipulate statutes of limitations,” thereby “[giving] mortgage lenders and loan servicers opportunities to avoid strict compliance with remedial statutes and manipulate statutes of limitations to their advantage.” (Assembly Mem in Support of 2022 Assembly Bill A7737B, L2022, Ch. 821 at 1).
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. Gets Sponsor to Cure all Defects in New Construction Condominium in Record Time
Rachel Sigmund McGinley
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
How Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secured a Million-Dollar Award in a Major Case on Attorneys’ Fees
Adam Leitman Bailey
LANDLORD REPRESENTATION
Recently Passed Real Estate Nightmare Legislation
Adam Leitman Bailey
Dov A Treiman
A review of some of the most noteworthy landlord-tenant related legislation of 2023 and early 2024 involving criminal background checks, stopping short-term tenancies, flood histories and rent regulation.
While readers with differing interests will disagree about the cost/benefit effects of recent enactments (both legislative and regulatory) regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, all can agree that these enactments have the purpose of restricting real estate profitability for owners and further limiting a landlords’ rights of self-determination in managing their own property. While federal law has been relatively quiet in landlord-tenant enactments, of late, both New York State and New York City have been quite active.
Along with these, however, there have been a few enactments that have had the effect of moving landlord liability for tenant illegality to more focused tenant liability for that same misconduct. Thus, this article reviews some of the most noteworthy landlord-tenant related legislation of 2023 and early 2024.
Where the law remains in complete disarray, at the moment, is with respect to legalized marijuana, legalized at the state, but still not yet at the federal level. Under New York State law, nearly any building may house a legal (for state purposes) marijuana dispensary.
There have also been substantial new regulations and legislation enacted in regard to rent stabilization.
Criminal Background Checks
To take effect on Jan. 1, 2025 is The Fair Chance For Housing Act (New York City Administrative Code 8-102a et seq), in which the New York City Council enacted restrictions on the use of criminal background checks in renting residential property. In the broadest terms, the law prohibits a landlord from barring from a rental those whose criminal cases did not result in a conviction, misdemeanor convictions that are older than three years, and felony convictions that are older than five years. Landlords may nonetheless bar housing to those who are on sex offense registries. Also barred from being refused housing are those who have received a pardon, a certificate of relief from disabilities, or some other vacatur or nullification of the conviction.
One thing uniting all of these categories of exemption from rental discrimination is that for none of them is there an assurance either that the prospective tenant did not actually do the illegal conduct nor that the prospective tenant is unlikely to commit such conduct again.
One needs to remember that even an out and out acquittal after trial only adheres to the criminal concept of the presumption of innocence for criminal purposes. Many have been the examples through history of those found criminally not-guilty, but nonetheless civilly liable.
APPELLATE LITIGATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Recovers Substantial Rental Arrears From A Commercial Tenant Which Violated The Payment Condition Of A Yellowstone Injuction
Jeffrey R. Metz
Vladimir Mironenko
FORECLOSURE LITIGATION GROUP
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Defeats Multiple Attempts By Borrower To Vacate A Foreclosure Sale
Jackie Halpern Weinstein
Danny Ramrattan
Courtney J. Lerias
LANDLORD - TENANT REPRESENTATION
A Comprehensive Guide to The Good Cause Eviction Laws
Adam Leitman Bailey
Dov A Treiman
Introduction
There has been quite a bit of attention in the Real Estate Industry paid to the “Good Cause Eviction Law” (GCE) signed into law on April 22, 2024. While the law gives a good deal of new paperwork for lawyers to complete when dealing with tenants, our office has developed procedures to make the increase in fees required by such increased paperwork minimal. While the law, at first blush, seems strange and new, a closer examination of it will make it appear much more familiar to our clients who already have knowledge of Rent Stabilization.
GCE does not apply to rent stabilized apartments. The law is structured so that it applies to all New York City apartments except those that fall under an exception. This provision is more important than it appears. There is a similar provision in the Rent Stabilization Law that the courts have interpreted to mean that where there is a question about whether an applicable exception applies, the landlord claiming the exception has the burden of proof. Some of the categories of exception are so black and white that burden of proof issues will not likely arise, but others seem more inclined to need interpretation.
Exceptions
The exceptions are in the following categories:
1. Outside of the City of New York, GCE only applies where local authorities have enacted it by local legislation. Inside New York City, GCE will be phasing in, but most of it applies immediately.
2. “Small landlords” as defined by the statute. Basically, this means a landlord who “owns” a maximum of ten apartments inside New York State. However the meaning of “owns” in this context is very complicated and will clearly give rise to considerable litigation. Just for one example, anyone who has separate LLC’s for separate buildings where the total number of apartments in those buildings is more than eleven will, for purposes of this law, be considered not to be a “small” landlord. Landlords claiming to be small will have to disclose a considerable amount of information about their business associates. We have a number of clients who manage various collections of investors going in together for a particular property. While it is too soon to see how the courts will be interpreting the law, we predict that in any collection of investors, if there is one investor whose holdings add up to eleven or more apartments spread through various collections of investors, the presence of that one investor will make every building invested in subject to the GCE, even if all the other investors in that building have interests in buildings containing ten or fewer apartments.
3. Buildings of fewer than eleven units where the landlord lives in one of those units.
4. Apartments where a tenant subletting the apartment is trying to get the apartment back for personal occupancy. Note the GCE law gives this privilege to a tenant who is subletting, not to the owner of the property.
5. A superintendent’s apartment or that of any other employee who holds the apartment as part of a job and that employee has been fired.
6. A rent regulated apartment under any rent regulatory scheme.
7. Affordable housing units under an affordable housing law.
8. Coop and condo apartments.
9. Units that are newer than December 31, 2008. This exemption applies unit by unit, not to an entire building unless the entire building was built on or after January 1, 2009. The exemption lasts only for the first thirty years of the unit’s existence after the c of o has been issued.
10. Seasonal occupancies.
11. Occupancies in hospitals, retirement homes, assisted living and various other kinds of senior housing.
12. Mobile homes.
13. Hotel rooms.
14. College dormitories and boarding schools.
15. Religious cells.
16. Luxury apartments. The law defines how to determine whether an apartment is luxury, but it is not a fixed number. The figures change annually, but can generally be found at the Good Cause Eviction Charts. These charts enable calculation of 245% of the HUD geographic Fair Market Rent, that threshold being necessary to win exemption on this ground from GCE coverage.
17. While the law does not say so on its face, we predict that the courts will not apply the GCE to non-landlord/tenant relationships such as licensees, squatters, persons who have been foreclosed on, and various other reasons to evict a person who is not a tenant at all.
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Defeats Motion to Vacate Note of Issue That was Filed One Day Too Late
Eric S. Askanase
Carolyn Z. Rualo
REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE AND DISCRIMINATION
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
TITLE INSURANCE CLAIMS GROUP
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secures Landmark Decision for Title Insurer Establishing New Precedent Regarding a Title Insurers’ Obligations Related to Consolidated Mortgages
Jeffrey R. Metz
Danny Ramrattan
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained to defend a title insurer in an action where the lender sought declaratory judgment that a title insurance policy remained in full force and effect.
The title insurer issued a title insurance policy in connection with a mortgage in the amount of $1,995,000.00. That mortgage was assigned twice. Thereafter, a Gap Mortgage in the amount of $1,005,000.00 was issued, and then consolidated with the original mortgage to form a single lien in the amount of $3,000,000.00 by Consolidation, Extension, and Modification Agreement (“CEMA”). In connection with the CEMA, the lender purchased a new title insurance policy in the insured amount of $3,000,000.00 from a new title insurer. Following the CEMA, the loan was assigned two more times.
The lender commenced an action to foreclose the CEMA. After the defendants answered and alleged that the loans should be deemed null and void, the lender made a claim to the title insurer in connection with the original $1,995,000.00 policy. The title insurer denied the lender’s claim, and the declaratory judgment action ensured.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. quickly moved to dismiss the action. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that the title insurer’s liability is based on contract law and is governed by the terms of the policy. The policy provides that the “Insured” includes the owner of the mortgage and “each successor in ownership of the indebtedness”. However, the policy only remains in effect as long as the “Insured retains an estate or interest in the land”.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that the CEMA made clear that it “will constitute in law a single lien upon the property”, therefore, any interest in the land had by the original mortgage was terminated by the execution of the CEMA. Thus, the original title insurance policy would have terminated. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that it was clear that the lender was aware of this as lender took out a new title insurance policy for the full face
value of the CEMA, not just the difference between the CEMA and the prior policy.
In opposition, the lender cited to case law that an original mortgage exists independently from a CEMA. Lender argued that the original mortgage was independent, and therefore, the policy should still remain in effect.
In opposition, the lender cited to case law that an original mortgage exists independently from a CEMA. Lender argued that the original mortgage was independent, and therefore, the policy should still remain in effect.
In reply, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that the cases cited by the lender did involve title insurance. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that it was completely irrelevant as to whether the original mortgage exists independently from the CEMA, because even if the mortgage still does exist, it does not retain any estate or interest in the land since the CEMA became a single lien against the property. Therefore, the original policy would have terminated upon the execution of the CEMA regardless of whether the original mortgage exists independently.
The Court adopted Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s arguments finding that the lender argued that it “should be considered a successor in ownership under the policy because the first mortgage does not cease to exist once consolidated." However, the cases cited by plaintiff for this provision do not concern the issue of title insurance; specifically, as relevant herein, whether for the purposes of the policy the first mortgage continues to secure a separate interest or estate in the mortgage property”.
This decision is a tremendous win for all title insurers. In New York, many times mortgages are assigned instead of being satisfied in order for parties to save on mortgage recording taxes. By issuing this decision, the Court gives protection to title insurers who have issued a title insurance policy on an old mortgage that has now been consolidated.
Jeffrey R. Metz, Esq., and Danny Ramrattan, Esq. at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. secured this result for its client.
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., Protects Landlord’s Rights Under a 25-Year Old Easement
Colin E. Kaufman
Plaintiff bought a property in 1998; her deed included an easement retained by the vendor to permit access across its driveway to the loading dock of its then-neighboring warehouse “…for the purpose of permitting ingress and egress of persons and motor vehicles.…”.
Before 2012, Plaintiff was allowed to traverse Vendor’s driveway to park in the rear of her building.
Vendor sold the warehouse in 2012 to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s clients who developed the property as a high-end residential condo; the former driveway was converted to use as a courtyard/rear access for unit owners.
Plaintiff sought to extinguish the easement since its former purpose had ceased and sought the right to cross Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s clients’ courtyard to reach the rear of her property either under an easement by necessity or an easement by implication.
Following a two day bench trial in Kings County Supreme Court, the Court held that the easement had not been extinguished, that the area could be used “… for any legal purpose [clients] see fit,” and that Plaintiff had no right to cross over the clients’ property.
Following a two day bench trial in Kings County Supreme Court, the Court held that the easement had not been extinguished, that the area could be used “… for any legal purpose [clients] see fit,” and that Plaintiff had no right to cross over the clients’ property.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s clients were represented by Partner Colin E. Kaufman.
REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevails at Making New Law as Appellate Division Finds Second Sponsor Not Liable For Condominium Building Defects
Adam Leitman Bailey
John M. Desiderio
Jeffrey R. Metz
COURT LETS FORTIS OFF HOOK FOR WILLIAMSBURG CONDO DEFECTS
Developer wins argument that shoddy workmanship is board’s problem now
In a dispute between the Board of a condominium and the Sponsor of a condominium who acquired several condo units following a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of the original sponsor, the Board brought suit alleging breach of contract for damages and defects within the condominium existing prior to the original sponsor declaring bankruptcy. The alleged defects included flooding, poor wiring, HVAC issues, and cracks in the facade of the building. The firm was retained to represent the acquiring Sponsor who disclaimed responsibility for repairing the defects in the condominium.
In October 2011, the Sponsor acquired thirty-seven condominium units along with forty parking spaces in the Bayard Views Condominium, a high-rise luxury condominium overlooking Brooklyn’s McCarren Park. The purchase occurred after a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of the original sponsor. About three months later, the Sponsor amended the condominium offering plan listing itself as the new sponsor and stating that it would be making repairs on “Punch List” items in connection with the construction of the building’s common areas.
In a July 2015 Bankruptcy Court order, the Court concluded the Sponsor could not be subject to liability for the original sponsor’s conduct occurring prior to the bankruptcy reorganization plan.
Specifically, the Sponsor could not be liable for the condominium’s faulty construction as a successor sponsor. Additionally, the Court noted the Sponsor could not be protected from claims stemming from the Sponsor’s conduct post-bankruptcy.
Subsequently, the Sponsor moved to dismiss the breach of contract claim asserting that the Sponsor was liable for conditions and defects existing at the condominium prior to the effective date of the bankruptcy reorganization plan. Further, a motion was filed to dismiss liability for such conditions and defects against the Sponsor’s principals. The Supreme Court granted the former, but denied the latter. This led to an appeal by the Board and a cross-appeal by the Sponsor’s principals.
On appeal, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was victorious. First, the Appellate Division agreed and affirmed the decision granting the Sponsor’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract allegation. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. established that the cause of action was seeking damages for conditions and defects in existence at the condominium preceding the bankruptcy of the original sponsor. Our client, the Sponsor, even acknowledged that the bankruptcy did not prevent the Board from holding the Sponsor liable for breach of any commitment to repair the “Punch List” items listed in the amendment to the offering plan. However, no such breach by the Sponsor occurred in this case.
APPELLATE LITIGATION
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Preserves Auction Sale For An Innocent Purchaser
Colin E. Kaufman
Jeffrey R. Metz
The firm was retained to represent an entity which purchased a property for valid consideration after the prior owner failed to satisfy a mechanics lien and never sought to redeem.
After the sale, the prior owner claimed that it had not been given the notice of the sale as had been directed by a prior court order. This, notwithstanding that the court notification system indicated that (i) the matter would appear in the foreclosure part on a date certain and the prior owner’s then attorney sought to adjourn the date and (ii) the prior owner and new counsel were at the courthouse on the auction date but rather than appear in the foreclosure part then stayed in the hallway of the courtroom of the judge and went to the foreclosure part after the sale had taken place.
Initially, upon the prior owner’s challenge to the sale, the matter was referred to a Special Referee to determine whether the sale price was within proper bounds (it was) and whether the prior owner had actual notice of the sale. The Special referee found in favor of the bidder and the prior owner then sought to reject the Referee’s report. The firm, for its part, moved to confirm and after extensive argument, the trial court agreed and confirmed the report
On appeal, the prior owner argued that its due process rights had been violated and that the sale had to be upset because notice of the sale was not given in accordance with the prior order. Although that was true, the firm was able to convince the Appellate Division that the prior owner clearly had notice. Why else would its principal and his new counsel appear in the courthouse on the date of the auction? The firm also showed that the prior owner’s claim that it thought it needed to appear before the trial court was unsustainable in that the trial court had no pending motion and the e-courts notice clearly spelled out where one had to appear. As a result, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s client was able to reap the fruits of its purchase.
Colin E. Kaufman represented the purchaser before the Special Referee and the Supreme Court. Jeffrey R. Metz represented the purchaser before the Appellate Division, First Department
CONDOMINIUM AND COOPERATIVE
-c162bde99853ed185fd881abc101def4fa600732.png?v=05282024160526){kind=small}
One-Step Solution
Danny Ramrattan
When common-charge arrears keep piling up with no end in sight, condo boards typically make a motion to foreclose and then another to evict. But there’s a workaround you may not know about.
Slow going. When unit-owners fail to pay common charges after a notice to cure, condo boards commence an action similar to what a mortgage lender would to foreclose. You ask the court to appoint someone to calculate the amount owed and for permission to auction off the unit in order to satisfy the money you’re due. Then comes the problem of eviction. Once boards become owners of a unit, they typically go to a landlord-tenant attorney and move to evict. But the process can take years, and in the meantime you’re not getting your common charges.
A faster route. There is an alternative — a writ of assistance, which allows a board to make a motion to evict a tenant within the foreclosure action. In other words, you’re just acting within an action that already exists instead of having to commence a new one. But there are three requirements to be met before you can do this. One, there needs to be language in the judgment of foreclosure specifying that the purchaser be let into possession of the property. Two, when you commence the foreclosure action, you have to serve not only the unit-owner but also any tenant residing in the apartment. Three, you have to file a notice of pendency so that if a tenant comes in after the foreclosure judgment, that person is subject to eviction as well.
Forced out. So once a board becomes the unit-owner, it would make this motion for a writ of assistance. If the motion is granted, the board would automatically have a judgment of possession, which it can give to the police to evict the former owner from the apartment. But that can only happen if you take all the necessary steps during the foreclosure action, so you need to think ahead.
PURCHASE AND SALE OF HOMES
Choosing Between Multiple Home Offers
Rosemary Liuzzo Mohamed
Purchases and Sales have increased in the last few weeks and the Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. transactional team is here for it! In fact, several of our selling clients have received multiple offers on their properties, and here are a few tips on navigating through this choice.
Although it is tempting to go with the Purchaser who makes the highest offer price, there are several other factors a Seller should consider before making a final decision.
CONDOMINIUM & COOPERATIVE
Bonnie Reid Berkow
Defending a Westchester County Cooperative, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevails in a Defamation Action
A Westchester County cooperative corporation had commenced an action against certain individuals for defamation arising out of libelous statements circulated to homeowners containing defamatory statements accusing Board members of dishonesty and illegal conduct.
TENANT REPRESENTATION
Winning a Loft Law Case: The Long Winding Road to Weaponing the Loft Law and Rent Stabilization Code to Finally Prevailing at Appellate Division
I previously represented a long-term resident of a Tribeca apartment in the successful appeal of a CPLR Article 78 determination permitting the building’s owner to remove the building’s only elevator from service.
Andrew D. Cassady
Vault Names Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Top 150 Law Firms to Work For Under 150 Attorneys for 2024
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Joins Vault’s Top 150 Under 150 List as One of the Best Midsize Law Firm to Work For. Vault has also released its new Top 150 Under 150 list—Vault’s collection of the leading small and midsized firms in the U.S. with 150 or fewer attorneys.
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.
Vault, an Infobase Company, is the most comprehensive and trusted resource for law students and laterals to research law firms. Vault’s law firm rankings and profiles deliver the insider perspective and essential information candidates need to make successful career decisions. Each year, Vault surveys thousands of associates to understand what life is like for attorneys at the nation’s top law firms. Vault ranks law firms by prestige, region, and practice area as well as top firms for quality of life using its annual survey results. Additionally, Vault publishes other valued resources including the Vault Guide to Summer Associate Programs and Interviewing, Vault’s Guide to Legal Practice Areas, the Vault Guide to First Year of Law School, and Law Firm Diversity Profiles. This year, Vault also released the Vault Guide to Navigating Your Legal Career in the Time of Coronavirus. Through Vault’s law school platform, thousands of students from nearly 100 partnering law schools across the country have unlimited access to this critical information.
Adam Leitman Bailey Named a City & State’s Trailblazer in Law
The legal profession doesn’t always get much respect. Many Americans don’t trust lawyers, and the common stereotype is that they rake in profits while making society more litigious.
But a closer inspection reveals that countless attorneys are driven by more idealistic aims. That’s why City & State’s inaugural Trailblazers in Law is putting a spotlight on a select group of leaders who are using their legal training to make the world a better place. This feature, the first in City & State’s new Trailblazers series, recognizes civil rights lawyers standing up for racial equality, legal services providers representing incarcerated and indigent New Yorkers, and civic-minded attorneys combating fraud, corruption and abuse. The list includes legal experts in key areas, including health care, labor and real estate, and in pioneering industries such as cannabis and renewable energy. The Trailblazers on this year’s list are ensuring that 9/11 survivors are cared for, that migrants have access to shelter, that whistleblowers are shielded from retaliation.
Adam Leitman Bailey Honored with Connect CRE’s 2023 New York & Tri-State Lawyers in Real Estate Award
Connect CRE ’s Lawyers in Real Estate Awards spotlight real estate attorneys who have made an impact through both their practice in real estate-related matters and the contributions they have made as members of the industry and the community.
“Since its founding, the firm has revolutionized the practice of landlord-tenant law and has been at the forefront of efforts to facilitate New York’s foreclosure process (representing lenders). As a creative litigation firm, the firm continues to use legislation and arcane laws to change the marketplace.
The firm’s successes have led to the highest honors and awards from the bar and ranking organizations. Adam Leitman Bailey, PC is the only real estate law firm with under 30 attorneys that has received an AV® Martindale-Hubbell rating, Super Lawyers honors with a Top 100 recognition, Best Lawyers awards for the firm and attorneys, selected among America’s Top 100 Bet-The-Company Litigators, and selection into the Registry of Preeminent Lawyers as well as the American College of Real Estate Lawyers.
Bailey’s community endeavors include involving the firm with Buildings Foundations Inc. He also leads local high school students on historical walking tours of downtown Manhattan. He earned his law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law.”
Actively at the helm of the law firm he built from scratch, Adam Leitman Bailey, Esq. practices residential and commercial real estate law. Among New York’s most successful and prominent real estate attorneys, Mr. Bailey is one of two attorneys from a law firm with less than 30 attorneys that has been ranked in Chambers & Partners, honored with a Martindale-Hubbell “AV” Preeminent rating, a Best Lawyers ranking for himself and his law firm, selected by Super Lawyers as one of New York’s “Top 100” attorneys, a list that included only five real estate law firms’ attorneys and selected among America’s Top 100 Bet-The-Company Litigators.
U.S. News & World Report Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. a 2024 Best Company to Work For: Law Firm
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. – The Inside View
A real (e)state of mind and dreams of the concrete jungle define the ambitious lawyers at this boutique, with prowess in “anything you could possibly think of in the real estate world.”
It’s a well-known fact that New York City boasts an impressive skyline, with the iconic Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, and Chrysler Building dotting its streets. You could call it a real estate lawyer’s dream, especially considering the years of history mapped onto its cityscape. However, in among these landmarks and across the water from the Statue of Liberty, you’ll find One Battery Park Plaza, home to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. The building itself is a sight to see, but the firm on its 18th floor has a reputation that’s just as imposing as its home. “We’re the largest single-person-owned real estate firm in New York, and we follow our own path,” says eponymous founder Adam Leitman Bailey. “We came back from COVID in September 2020, earlier than lots of other firms. We won’t let anything get in the way of pleasing our clients and bringing them success.” The small headcount (of just over 20 lawyers!) and a single office location haven’t got in the way either, and Bailey explains how “although we’re all in the office full-time, we have a few attorneys based in different counties and they can get to the courts there.”
“It’s well known in the real estate industry, so it was on my radar long before I joined.”
You could probably say ALB’s reputation is public property at this point, and is backed up by Bailey’s own top-tier real estate litigation ranking from our colleagues at Chambers USA. Associates had also heard all the rage about ALB, and were more than happy to tell us how “it’s well known in the real estate industry, so it was on my radar long before I joined.” Another source was keen to join a firm that “packed a big punch in NYC!” However, others were drawn to “the firm culture and way attorneys here treat younger associates, interns and externs. It’s very collaborative and nothing like the horror stories I’ve heard about elsewhere.” The people who feel at home at ALB, according to Bailey, “are really smart and want to be successful, and those who do really well here are willing to work hard to become great attorneys.”
COMMUNITY
Asli Celik Receives the 2024 Raymond “Hap” Harrison Scholarship
Asli, a senior at New Milford High School, received the 27th 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. Ms Asli was chosen out of all New Milford High School students by the Guidance Department to be a paid intern at Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. During the summer, Asli will be returning as a paid employee.
Adam Leitman Bailey awarded the first Raymond 'Hap' Harrison Scholarship in 2008 in honor of his high-school cross-country and track coach, Raymond 'Hap' Harrison. The scholarship is awarded annually to high school graduates attending college. To receive this accolade, a recipient must possess many of the ideals and traits Raymond Harrison instilled in Mr. Bailey, including deep-seated values of success and the desire to make the world a better place through helping others. Additionally, the recipient must also demonstrate financial need and strong academic achievement.
The Raymond 'Hap' Harrison Scholarship is funded through the Building Foundations charity, founded by Adam Leitman Bailey in 2002. The charity’s mission is to assist students of all ages in pursuing their professional and personal dreams by providing financing, scholarships, education, internships, real-life experience and any other tools necessary to reach these dreams.
Today, a number of scholarships, totaling millions of dollars funded by Adam Leitman Bailey, are given out each year to his alma mater as well as to students at underserved New York City high school.
The History of The Raymond "Hap" Harrison Scholarship
GIVING IS SECOND NATURE TO NEW MILFORD ALUM
Adam Leitman Bailey, a successful attorney, is the New Milford Education Foundation's "Humanitarian Of the Year"
NEW MILFORD — Anyone else would have been sidelined for good.
In 1987, Adam Leitman Bailey was a passenger in a car that crashed in Bergenfield. He broke both arms and his right hand and was in a coma for a few days.
But that didn't slow him down. Once out of the hospital, Bailey — a runner on the New Milford High School cross-country team — quickly returned to training, despite having casts on both arms.
Bailey ran a record season that year, achieving all-county honors, and was presented with an Award of Courage from his coaches and teammates just before graduating in 1988.
“That incident really tells you a lot about Adam,” his former coach, Raymond "Hap" Harrison, said from his Weare, N.H., home. “It didn’t set him back — it made him tougher."
Harrison added, "His determination on the track is a character trait that carried over throughout his life.”
Bailey, established a scholarship in his former coach’s name in 2008, the same year Harrison retired.
Each scholarship recipient also interns at Bailey's law office the summer between his or her junior and senior years.
“Since he graduated, Adam has constantly kept an eye on New Milford public schools," said Raymond Cottiers, chairman of the foundation’s gala committee. "A large number of students have benefited from his financial help, and for that, we decided to honor him with this award.”
Bailey said he is “extremely honored” to receive the award.
Today, Bailey is a best-selling author and successful real estate attorney in Manhattan.
But at 13, when he and his mother moved to New Milford, he was an easy target for bullies.
“New Milford is a fighting town, and it taught me to fight hard," Bailey said.
Track and cross-country, he said, were his escape. And, he said, Harrison was like a father figure to him.
Bailey said the struggles he endured as a child — including the 1987 accident — shaped the way he is now.
"I'm very appreciative for all New Milford has given me," he said.
Bailey said he looks for that same fighting spirit in the students he chooses for his scholarships.
“I want the hungriest and smartest kids you can find,” Bailey said. “I’m very picky.”
Scholarship recipients say Bailey’s help runs much deeper than the money he has donated.
TESTIMONIALS