“As you read our latest Client Newsletter, I’m proud to share that I’ve recently been appointed to the Board of Directors at R&E. After 17 years with the firm, I’m both honored and excited to take on this new role and the responsibilities it brings.
This past quarter has been especially meaningful. Since our 50th anniversary celebration in March, R&E has continued to demonstrate its longstanding commitment to excellence in New York’s real estate legal industry. We’re also thrilled to announce that our Transactions Department was nominated as a finalist for the 2025 New York Law Journal Legal Awards in the newly introduced category, “Real Estate Transaction of the Year.” This recognition underscores our dedication to delivering top-tier legal representation and client service.
We were also fortunate to spend the summer with an outstanding group of summer associates. Their energy, talent, and contributions were greatly appreciated, and we thank them for their hard work.
I hope you find this edition of the newsletter informative and engaging. Thank you for your continued trust in R&E as your legal partner.
Brett B. Theis Member
Contents
New York City Development Group Updates
Read updates from R&E’s NYC Development Group members regarding tax incentives, changes to tax programs since the One Big Beautiful Bill and its impact on Opportunity Zones and City of Yes.
Rosenberg & Estis Blog
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.’s blog section continues to serve as a platform which provides crucial and timely updates to our valued clients and industry colleagues.
Podcast: Inside R&E
Inside R&E is a podcast hosted by R&E attorneys who discuss current issues facing developers, owners and operators in the industry.
Recent Publications
Published works by R&E attorneys, featured in the New York Law Journal
Press Releases
Throughout the last quarter, R&E attorneys have had a number of remarkable achievements, including significant victories, successful closings, recognition by Best Lawyers and several wellearned promotions.
Launch of R&E’s new website
We’re thrilled to unveil our new R&E website—a major milestone that underscores our leadership in real estate law and strengthens our ability to engage with clients, colleagues, and the wider community.
Recent Events
As New York City’s premier real estate law firm, R&E attorneys were featured as expert speakers on in-person panels, podcasts, and webinars. The attorneys also actively participated in key industry events and engaged with our summer law clerks through a variety of firm-hosted activities.
New York City Development Group Updates
September 18, 2025
Temporary Tax Incentives & Permanent Restrictions on Property Use: How NYC Developers Finance and Build Multifamily Rental Housing Today
By Daniel M. Bernstein
Recently a multifamily developer new to NYC asked us a question: how do NYC developers underwrite a temporary property tax incentive (421a(16) aka AFNY; 485-x aka ANNY; or for conversions of non-residential buildings 467-m aka AHCC) benefiting newly developed multifamily rental property which will be subject to affordability and rent stabilization (RS) restrictions longer than the tax incentive (and potentially permanent restrictions).
For decades NYC developers have been underwriting affordability and RS requirements for mixed-income projects where a restriction (affordability and/or RS) exceeds the length of the property tax incentive benefits. For example under the permanent affordability and RS requirements of the Voluntary Inclusionary Housing (VIH) or Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program or under versions of the 421-a tax incentive program in which affordable units remain subject to affordability and RS for 35 or 40 years and thereafter remain subject to RS until a vacancy occurs. Achievable rents for market units—which are needed to cross-subsidize lower rents for affordable units—will be critical, as will standard developer considerations (acquisition cost, construction wage requirements (if applicable), zoning/land use considerations, etc.)
Consider the Underwriting Period / How Long Asset Will Be Owned
For developers whose time horizon aligns with the duration of the property tax incentive, permanent affordablility / RS may not be a pressing concern. The economics of the asset
post-tax incentive expiration may depend on factors which cannot presently be known (available rents for market units, legal changes, etc.). For example NYS’ recent Affordable Housing Retention Act has enabled owners of certain older mixed-income properties to sell market rate apartments in exchange for preserving existing affordable units and potentially adding affordable units. Who knows what rents will be and what repositioning options may be available 35 years from now? Note: to developers / investors with a multigenerational outlook, permanent affordability / RS may present more of a concern.
Developers Look to Optimize Benefits from Applicable Economic Incentive Programs
With proper planning, affordable units can satisfy the requirements of two or more programs: property tax incentive (421-a, 485-x, 467-m), zoning affordability requirements (MIH) or bonus programs (the new Universal Affordability Preference program or the prior VIH program, as applicable), as well as below-market financing programs from governmental agencies (if available). The more restrictive requirements of each program must be satisfied which includes affordability, design and many other requirements.
Requirements of NYS’s Newest Incentive Programs for Residential Development: 485-x and 467-m
Under NY’s most recent property tax incentive programs -- 485-x for new construction and 467-m for conversions from non-residential to resi-
Daniel M. Bernstein Member
dential use—the affordability and RS requirements are permanent. For the underwriting period, the net operating income (NOI) of such multifamily / mixed-income projects—market rents for most of the dwelling units and affordability / RS for (typically) 20% - 30% of units plus a substantial property tax incentive (421-a, 485-x, 467-m, etc.) and potentially zoning or other benefits, can make for a positive NOI for at least the tax incentive period and forecasting underwriting beyond such a period is subject to legal and political uncertainties. Even where a development site is ground leased, assuming the fee owner and the ground lessee can come to a business arrangement, NYC mixed-income multifamily developments can occur and benefit from an as-of-right property tax incen-
tive provided that both the fee owner and ground lessee agree to subject the property to the requirements of the property tax incentive program and any other applicable regulatory regimes.
For more information about NYC property tax incentives, zoning affordability programs and the development of mixed-income multifamily development, please contact Daniel M. Bernstein and Nicholas DiLorenzo of R&E’S Tax Incentives & Affordable Housing Department. Read Daniel’s Tax Incentives and Affordable Housing blog on the Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. website, and connect with Daniel and Nick on LinkedIn.
Improvements to Tax Credit Programs Supporting the Development of Affordable Housing, Mixed-Use Projects and
Commercial
Projects
By Lisa S. Lim
On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “Act”) also contained a number of improvements to two tax credit programs, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”), the New Market Tax Credit (“NMTC”), to stimulate, respectively, the development of affordable housing, mixed-use projects, and commercial projects.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit
First, the Act permanently increased the allocation of LIHTC to the States by 12%. States receive LIHTC from the IRS in proportion to their population with a small state minimum. In 2025, States had LIHTC allocation equal to $3.00 per person. Starting in 2026, State allocation authority will permanently increase by 12%. This increase applies to the competitive 9% LIHTC and the 4% LIHTC which are as-of-right in a tax-exempt bond financing. Upon syndication, the 9% LIHTC can result in equity that can support 75% to 80% of a project’s total development costs while the 4% LIHTC, upon syndication, can result in equity that can support 30% to 35% of a project’s total development costs.
Previously the 4% LIHTC were subject to a tax rule that required that at least 50% of a project’s total development costs (aggregate basis of land and building) be funded by tax exempt bonds. The Act lowered the 50% test to 25% for projects placed in service after December 31, 2025. This means that State housing agencies can effectively award more projects both tax exempt bonds and 4% LIHTC.
New Market Tax Credit
The NMTC Program was designed to attract private investors to invest in qualified low income communities through their investment in Community Development Entities (“CDEs”) who receive allocations of NMTC. The CDEs can then provide loans and capital to qualified projects. NMTC can be layered into a mixed
use project with LIHTC, funding the commercial or retail components of the project, while the LIHTC is directed to the affordable housing portion of the project.
The NMTC Program has existed since 2010 but was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2025. The Act permanently extended the NMTC program.
Historic Tax Credit
The Historic Tax Credit Program (“HTC”) has its roots in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which created the National Register of Historic Places. There have been a few iterations of this program. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (PL.115-9) was signed on December 22, 2017 and tax legislation that went into effect on January 1, 2018 is the current law, allowing for a 20% federal credit of qualified rehabilitation expenses. 35 states offer their own historic tax credit program which can be combined with the federal program. New York State’s program mirrors the federal but the added benefit is that New York HTC can be realized as a “cash refund.” While there were proposals to expand the federal HTC program, the Act did not do so nor did it create any new credits focused on adaptive reuse, rehabilitation or commercial conversions. Still, the HTC remains an important tool for preserving and rehabilitating historically significant structures that are income producing, which may include, but are not limited to, office buildings, retail spaces, rental housing, hotels and inns.
For more information on these programs plus other financing tools, please contact Lisa S. Lim at llim@ rosenbergestis.com or at 212-5511210.
Lisa S. Lim Member
One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes Opportunity Zones Permanent
By Adam R. Sanders
Adam R. Sanders Member
On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made the Opportunity Zones (OZ) tax designation and investment program permanent. From its inception as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the OZ program permits taxpayer investors to defer payment of federal tax on capital gains for a period of time provided that the taxpayer invests the capital gains in an opportunity zone business or property for up to ten years, and then following the ten years, exempts federal tax on the capital gains of the OZ program investment.
A few bullet point updates to the initial OZ program are:
• Permanence. New OZs will be designated every 10 years. The new determination period will begin on July 1, 2026, and the first new designations will be active beginning Jan. 1, 2027.
• Low-Income Community Eligibility Criteria. The definition of low-income community is narrowed to 70% of the area median income and contiguous tracts are no longer eligible.
• Deferral; Non-Rural v. Rural Step Up In Basis. Capital gains invested in OZ funds can be deferred from
paying taxes on a rolling basis for up to five years. Non-rural OZs will receive a 10% step up in basis for investments held at least five years and, provided that at least 90% of qualified OZ property of an OZ fund are in rural OZs, Rural Ozs will receive a 30% step up in basis for investments held at least five years.
• Reporting Requirements. $15,000,000 is allocated to implement reporting and transparency requirements of the OZ Transparency Extension and Improvement Act (OZTEIA).
Please note that guidance and additional regulations are expected from the Department of Treasury in the coming months.
Stay tuned!
If you have an impending capital gain, property or development project which may be subject to the Opportunity Zones program or would like more information please contact Adam R. Sanders at asanders@rosenbergestis. com or at 212-551-1275.
City of Yes Implementation: More Flexibility Than Expected
By David J. Rosenberg
David J. Rosenberg Counsel
The Department of Buildings is taking a more flexible approach to City of Yes (COY) zoning transitions than initially expected. While early guidance suggested developers had to choose between pre-City of Yes zoning or the new framework in its entirety, DOB is now allowing buildings with pre-City of Yes approvals to selectively incorporate certain beneficial provisions from the current zoning without losing their vested status. This means that vested projects already taking advantage of more favorable old zoning provisions (such as the previous Inclusionary Housing bonus) may now also be able to access new flexibility around parking reductions or height and setback regulations while maintaining their existing approvals.
DOB’s approach continues to evolve as staff work through the specific text changes, creating opportunities that weren’t anticipated in the original transition guidance. Developers should review their pipeline projects to identify where these hybrid approaches might unlock additional value or solve design challenges that seemed insurmountable under the original either-or framework. Given the complexity and case-by-case nature of these determinations, early consultation can help identify the most promising opportunities before design decisions become final.
For more information about COY please contact David J. Rosenberg
ROSENBERG & ESTIS BLOG
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.’s blog section continues to serve as a platform which provides crucial and timely updates to our valued clients and industry colleagues.
Daniel M. Bernstein
Member, Head of Tax Incentives & Affordable Housing Department
Reminder – August 7, 2025 Deadline to Pull Permit and Vest Parking or Storage Warehouses under Recent ICAP Amendments
The amendments also memorialize these changes and the previously enacted ICAP self-storage prohibition in the applicable sections of the NYC Administrative Code.
Final J-51 Reform Rules Adopted: What Property Owners Need to Know
HPD received 43 comments, including from Rosenberg & Estis, resulting in several meaningful revisions from the original proposal.
New York’s Affordable Housing Retention Act: New Opportunities For Condo Conversions Which Preserve Affordable Housing and Protect Tenants Rights
Part GG of the New York State Budget, known as the Affordable Housing Retention Act (“AHRA”), enables condominium conversions in NYC for certain affordable housing developments.
To read more, visit the Tax Incentives & Affordable Housing Blog on the Rosenberg & Estis website.
Benjamin M.
Williams
Member, Head of Property Tax Department
Article 7 Filing Season: File by October 24, 2025 to preserve your 2025/26 NYC property tax challenge
If your 2025/26 case didn’t resolve at the Tax Commission - or won’t be heard in time - file the Article 7 petition by October 24, 2025 to keep the year open. You can always discontinue later if a settlement makes sense, but you cannot reopen the year if you miss the deadline.
How to Avoid RPIE-2024 Non-Filing Penalties
The NYC Department of Finance (DOF) published its RPIE-2024 non-compliance list in early to mid-July 2025, identifying 17,851 tax lots across the five boroughs that failed to submit a properly completed Real Property Income and Expense (RPIE) statement for 2024.
New York City Property Tax Levy and Rates for Fiscal Year 2026
This procedure, finalized by City Council resolutions on June 30, 2025, includes multiple detailed steps designed to balance the city’s budget while equitably distributing the tax burden among the different property classes.
To read more, visit the NYC Property Tax Blog on the Rosenberg & Estis website.
PODCAST: INSIDE R&E
Inside R&E is a podcast hosted by R&E attorneys who discuss current issues facing developers, owners and operators in the industry.
Inside R&E is the perfect way to keep yourself up-to-date on the New York real estate industry. Inside R&E is available to stream on all major platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music and Google Podcasts. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcast.
In this episode of Inside R&E, Benjamin M. Williams, Member and Head of the firm’s Property Tax Department, invites Brett B. Theis, Member in the firm’s Litigation Department, and Neil Axler, Managing Director at EisnerAmper NY and leader of the firm’s National Real Estate Valuation Practice, to discuss appraisal methodologies, commercial lease appraisals, arbitration and property tax issues.
Part 2: Local Law 97
Featuring Devin P. Kosar
In this episode of Inside R&E, Devin P. Kosar, a Member in the firm’s Litigation Department, welcomes back Alex Zafran, the Director of Business Development of Logical Buildings, to continue their discussion on Local Law 97, which was enacted in 2019 as part of New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act.
Inspiring Spaces with Inspiring People
Featuring Michael A. Pensabene
In this episode of Inside R&E, Michael A. Pensabene, a Member in the firm’s Litigation Department, and Craig M. Deitelzweig, President & Chief Executive Officer of Marx Realty, host an inaugural podcast in the new podcast gallery at 10 Grand Central.
To listen to previously recorded podcasts, please visit the Podcasts page, under “Media” on the Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. website, or go to the Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. YouTube channel (@rosenbergestis).
We’re excited to share that R&E is developing a brand-new, fully equipped in-house Podcast Room — a dedicated space built for hosting in-person podcasts, webinars, and other virtual recordings. Designed with a professional-grade setup, this new space will ensure high-quality content production whether you’re recording on-site or remotely. We look forward to creating even more compelling content and invite our clients to take full advantage of this exciting new resource!
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
Addressing Objectionable Conduct in a Condominium: Limitations, Pitfalls and Strategies
New York Law Journal– September 10, 2025
By Matthew E. Eiben
Like any residential community, regardless of its legal structure (e.g. rental, condominium, or cooperative), there will be bad actors. Residents may repeatedly violate applicable rules and regulations such as those relating to excessive noise, odors, renovations, etc. Or worse, residents may engage in criminal activity. The remedies available to address this type of objectionable conduct depends on the type of community. This article will explore available remedies within a condominium apartment community - where the remedies are far more limited than in either rental or cooperative communities.
First, it is important to frame the analysis by looking to the legal structure itself. An owner of a condominium unit, unlike ownership of a cooperative apartment (which is really ownership of shares of stock in the cooperative corporation), has a fee ownership interest in a piece of real property subject to the Condominium’s governing documents - typically consisting of a declaration, by-laws, and house rules. The contents of the governing documents are governed by statute (namely, Article 9-B of the New York Real Property Law [“RPL”]), and are directly overseen and negotiated with the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York. As a fee owner of real property, the remedies of eviction and/or ejectment and largely unavailable. In contrast, a cooperative apartment owner has a landlord and tenant relationship with the entity operating the building, thus triggering the expedited eviction remedies provided for under the New York Real Property Law.
This article explores five principal strategies available to Condominiums in New York: (i) imposing fines, (ii) seeking specific performance, (iii)
obtaining preliminary injunctions, (iv) pursuing contempt for violation of court orders, and (v) seeking ejectment of the offending owner.
While a recent Supreme Court decision, affirmed the Board’s ability to obtain appropriate injunctive relief, and even contempt, the practical realities of litigation require that a Board fashion a multi-faceted approach with their litigation counsel including levying appropriate fines (if permitted by the by-laws).
I. Statutory Framework
Pursuant to RPL § 339-j, owners are required to strictly comply with the by-laws and with rules, regulations, resolutions and decisions adopted pursuant thereto. The statutory provision further provides that “Failure to comply with any of the same shall be ground for an action to recover sums due, for damages or injunctive relief or both maintainable by the board of managers on behalf of the unit owners or, in a proper case, by an aggrieved unit owner. In any case of flagrant or repeated violation by a unit owner, he may be required by the board of managers to give sufficient surety or sureties for his future compliance with the by-laws, rules, regulations, resolutions and decisions.” This rather broad set of remedies is further elucidated in the Condominium’s governing documents, as well as applicable case law.
II. Imposing Fines Against the Unit Owner
Many by-laws expressly permit the imposition of fines for violations of the rules and regulations for the condominium. This authority is typically found in the Article of the by-laws setting forth the board of managers’ ‘Powers and Duties.’ For example,
Matthew E. Eiben Counsel
Boards are often authorized to ‘adopt and amend rules and regulations, and to levy and collect fines against unit owners for violations of the same.’ The provision may limit the amount of the fine, expressly state the amount of the fine, or other restrictions regarding the Board’s authority. When authorized, boards must ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements in adopting a fine policy, including those relating to calling the board meeting at which the fines are adopted and any notice requirement to the Unit Owners upon adopting the protocols for imposing the fines. Courts typically afford a Board’s adoption of fines protection under the business judgment rule, so long as the Board acted within its authority, in good faith, and in furtherance of the Condominium’s interests (see Cave v. Riverbend Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , 99 AD3d 748 [2d Dep’t 2012][Upholding fines in the sum of $50 per day where the board acted in good faith and the by-laws expressly authorized late fees for unpaid common charges]; Yusin v. Saddle Lakes Home Owners Ass’n, Inc ., 73 AD3d 1168 [2d Dep’t 2010] [Annulling a board-imposed pet policy and associated fine which as not authorized by the by-laws.
Additionally, the fines must not be unreasonable or ‘confiscatory’ in nature (see Penal Law § 190.4 Minkin v Board of Directors of the Cortland Ride Homeowners Assn., Inc. [2d Dep’t 2017][Upholding fines in the sum of $100 for an initial violation and $100 per week thereafter for as long as the violation remained for violations of procedures regarding unauthorized exterior alterations]; Gabriel v Board of Managers of Gallery House Condominium , 130 AD3d 482 [1st Dept 2015][Annulling fines of $500 per day fines for violation of a rule limiting unit owners from leasing their apartment for more than 1 year]). In one decision, the trial court annulled a board’s imposition of $1,000 per day violations being charged for a unit oner engaging in persistent short-term rentals (see Vidov v Morton Square Condominium , 2018 NY Slip Op 053[U]). The Court did not accept the Board’s justification that the fines were imposed in an amount sufficient to effectively disincentivize the unit owner’s $700 per night short-term rental business. Simply put, a Board together with counsel must thread the needle -so to speak - balancing practicality and effectiveness, while not reaching so far as to be “confiscatory.”
The remedy for failing to pay a duly imposed fines depend on the condominium’s governing documents. At a minimum, the Board will be entitled to pursue a breach of contract claim. However, many by-laws will provide the failure to pay fines afford the condominium the same remedies for failing to pay common charges including filing a lien against the unit and foreclosing on the unit (see Cave ).
III. Seeking Specific Performance and/or A Declaration
When fines prove insufficient, or - ideally, in conjunction with imposition of fines, boards should pursue their other available remedies. One of which includes specific performance seeking to compel compliance with the governing documents and/or a declaration confirming the unit owners contractual obligations. Regarding specific performance, Courts have held that such relief is appropriate when money damages would be inadequate to protect the “expectation interest of the injured
party” and when performance will not impose a disproportionate or inequitable burden on the breaching party (see Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Development Corp , 96 NY2d 409 [2001]; Van Wagner Advertising v S&M Enterprises , 67 NY2d 187 [1986]).
With regard to a declaration, this is typically sough in addition to relief seeking affirmative relief such as specific performance, or an injunction - as discussed next. The relief is sought pursuant to CPLR 3001, where there is a justiciable controversy as to the rights and other relations between parties. In Board of Managers of Fishkill Woods Condominium v. Gottlieb , 184 AD3d 785 (2d Dep’t 2020), the Second Department issued a declaration affirming the Board’s authority to compel removal of a unit owner’s dog that had attacked other residents. The court emphasized that the board acted within its authority, supported by near-unanimous petitions of other unit owners, and that the residents had notice and an opportunity to respond.
IV. Injunctive Relief
Preliminary injunctions are sought to prevent ongoing harm while litigation proceeds, often in connection with a cause of action seeking a permanent injunction. A board must show: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm absent relief, and (3) a balance of equities in its favor. Upon issuance of the Order, non-compliance is punishable by civil and/or criminal contempt of Court as well as issuance of fines, money damages and requiring reimbursement for attorneys’ fees to the damaged party.
While this is arguably the strongest and more forceful approach to such situations. It is important to note that it is not without its own limitations. One of which is a Court’s hesitancy to hold a party in criminal contempteven after repeated violations. In recent decision issued in favor of a board of managers represented by Rosenberg & Estis, PC, a board of managers sought civil and criminal contempt against a unit owner who (among other violations) continued to allow a guest/occupant to engage in disruptive conduct in the unit and building ( The Board of Managers of the 7 MetroTech Condominium v. Deruytter , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 31651[U][Sup. Ct. New York County, J., Waterman-Marshall]). The Court granted nearly all relief sought in the motion, including an award of attorneys fees, but declined to hold the defendant in criminal conduct on the grounds that it had not established “beyond a reasonable doubt that [defendant]’s disobedience was “willful” - notwithstanding that the Board was compelled to file two contempt motions. Importantly, the Court’s reasoning suggests that had the disruptive behavior been coming directly from the defendant instead of his guest, the element of willfulness may have been far easier to establish.
In another decision, the Supreme Court in Erie County awarded a home owners association, represented by Schneider Buchel, LLP, a preliminary injunction enjoining a unit owner from returning to his condo unit due to repeated and documented criminal behavior therein ( Saddlebrook Pointe Association, Inc. v Heisler, et. al. Supreme Court, County of Erie (Index No. 807199/25, J., Pace). Notably, the decision was rendered on default and without opposition from the unit owner. Further, such
relief - however justifiable under the circumstances, is unlikely to be granted in Courts located within the City of New York given the more ample legal authority and protections against removal of residents from their home.
V. Seeking Ejectment
While the availability of ejectment of a unit owner by a board is questionable, the Court in Heisler - in addition to issuing an preliminary injunction - issued an order eject the unit owner from possession of the unit. This relief is not expressly set forth in Real Property Law § 339-j. Further, the probability of obtaining this relief within a New York City Court is low. Indeed, in one decision, the First Department overturned an Order of ejectment against a unit owner who had been violating certain pet/dog rules - noting that there was no indication that the dog in question posed a physical danger to residents.
Though not directly tied to objectionable conduct, ejectment of a unit owner by a board is possible in the context of a common charge foreclosure action, even before a judgment of foreclosure has been rendered. More specifically, in the event the unit owner violates an order requiring that he/she pay reasonable rent during the pendency of the action, the Courts have authority to remove the unit owner from possession
( Heywood Condominium v Wozencraft , 148 AD3d 38 [1st Dep’t 2017). This would allow the subject unit to then be rented and/or otherwise utilized by the Board until a formal foreclosure can be effectuated. Of course, tenants engaging in objectionable conduct may be otherwise complying with their financial obligations to the Condominium, in which case this remedy would be unavailable.
VI. Conclusion
Boards of managers in New York City condominiums have a wide arsenal to address objectionable conduct by unit owners. Beginning with internal measures such as fines, escalating to judicial remedies including specific performance, preliminary injunctions, and contempt, and - potentially - ejectment, the law provides tools to maintain order and protect the community.
The key to successful enforcement lies in careful adherence to governing documents, reliance on the business judgment rule, and a well-documented evidentiary record. Where boards act within their authority, in good faith, and to further the condominium’s legitimate interests, New York courts consistently uphold their actions.
Bradley S. Silverbush Member
The Decline in Landlord–Tenant Summary Proceedings: Do We Even Need a Housing Court?
New York Law Journal– August 5, 2025
By Gary M. Rosenberg and Bradley S. Silverbush
Comparison of multiple sources of relevant statistics (discussed infra ) reveal that the number of filings of summary proceedings since the onset of COVID (if not earlier) is at a relative all-time low. To what extent may have changes in the applicable laws been responsible for such a dramatic change and what does that portend for the Housing Court?
How We Got Here
There was a time when there was no Housing Court. First, there was the Civil Court of the City of New York which was established on Sept. 1, 1962 as a result of the merger of the City Court and the Municipal Court of the City of New York. “This merger was part of a statewide court reorganization in response to Governor Thomas E. Dewey’s Tweed Commission, which issued its recommendations in 1958.” In 1973, the Civil Court established the Housing Part , with specific hearing officers, now called Housing Court Judges.
The matters that the Housing Court primarily heard originally came from proceedings that evolved from the promulgation of Article 7 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL). Those proceedings initially fell into one of two primary categories, depending on the relationship between the parties; either nonpayment or holdover proceedings.
The latter was broken down into two sub-groups; those commenced pursuant to RPAPL 711, where there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties (e.g., breach of a substantial obligation of tenancy, expiration of lease, failure to provide access, nuisance, etc.), or, those commenced pursuant to RPAPL 713, where there was no landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties (e.g., squatters, licensees, terminated employees, etc.).
Article 7 itself was the result of “an endeavor to avoid encumbering the CPLR with provisions directed only to real property actions—of which numerous had evolved over the years. The old Civil Practice Act’s formidable allotment of those provisions was transferred into a separate compilation called the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, commonly known and officially citable as RPAPL.” Siegel, NY Practice Sec. 571, citing RPAPL 101.
Siegel points out that while the RPAPL became effective at the same time as the CPLR (i.e., Sept. 1, 1963), its contents are a “mixed bag,” which he describes as “supplementary provisions for some of the real property actions,” adding that “the CPLR still governs in those actions, the mission of the RPAPL being principally to supply detail for only certain aspects of some of them.” Id.
From its inception, the Housing Court heard and decided disputes between residential landlords and tenants in New York City. Over time, the types of cases were expanded beyond nonpayment and holdover proceedings to include proceedings to enforce housing maintenance standards, and allow a tenant to bring a case against a property owner to force them to make repairs and provide essential services, like heat and hot water.
An amendment in 1965 enacted Article 7-A “to permit one-third or more of the tenants occupying a multiple dwelling in the city of New York” to bring a proceeding for the appointment of an administrator to operate the building. Artis v. City of NY , 509
Gary M. Rosenberg Member
NYS2d 734 (Civ. Ct., NY County 1986), citing Matter of Himmel v. Chase Manhattan Bank , 262 NYS2d 515 (Civ. Ct., NY County 1965).
Unquestionably, much of the landlord-tenant related legislation that has been promulgated in the last 50 years has been intended to protect tenants. For example, the passage of Administrative Code 27-2009.1 in 1983 was intended “to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords seeking to evict them for improper reasons,” such as attempting to enforce a “no pet” provision of a lease where the tenant has openly and notoriously harbored that pet for a period of more than 90 days. Seward Park Housing Corp. v. Cohen , 287 AD2d 157 (First Dept., 2001).
As discussed infra , statistics reveal that from its inception, the case docket of the Housing Court increased rapidly. However, when COVID hit, lawmakers concerned with the impact it might have on tenants worked to enact an eviction moratorium, what one tenant advocacy group referred to as “a set of state and federal laws that provide residential tenants and homeowners various protections against evictions and foreclosures based on financial and/or medical hardship.”
In addition, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an order temporarily halting evictions (the CDC order) for certain renters. According to the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development , the CDC issued the order to protect public health and prevent further spread of COVID-19.
Thus, when the moratorium hit, the Housing Court essentially shut down evictions. In response, some lawyers turned to the New York State Supreme Court to bring their landlord-tenant cases, while others turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin the eviction ban. See, Chrysafis v. Marks , 594 US__(2021).
What has happened since the end of COVID has been surprising because statistics show that the number of eviction cases that are being filed have not only failed to return to the pre-COVID numbers, but according to at least one source , the number of eviction case filings are actually down by roughly 50% compared to the pre-pandemic numbers.
Specifically, while in 2019 there were 262,165 eviction filings statewide, those numbers dropped to 108,928 in 2020.
To What Do We Attribute the Changes To?
To put it in perspective, let us look at some of the legislative considerations that were proposed, deliberated upon, and resulted in significant changes in the law since 2007.
In October 2007, the New York City Council’s Committee on Housing and Buildings examined the harassment of tenants and remedies for such conduct. Less than six months later the Council enacted a local law “to amend the Administrative Code in relation to the duty of an owner to refrain from harassment of tenants and remedies for the breach of such duty.”
According to The New York Times , that law, also known as the New York City Tenant Protection Act of 2008 (Local Law 7), gave “tenants the right for the first time to sue their landlords in Housing Court for making threats against them, disrupting essential services and using other tactics that qualify as harassment to force them out of their apartments.”
The creation of this law provided tenants with new substantive rights. In terms of impact on the courts, the legislation resulted in scores of never-before-seen cases involving hotly contested factual allegations that required resources to resolve. For example, court attorneys who might typically be expected to conference nonpayment and holdover proceedings now had to deal with these additional cases (and similarly, those cases appearing on the docket took up a fair amount of the judges’ time, as well).
One year later, in reviewing and assessing the new law’s impact, the Council (in 2009) concluded that “since the bill was enacted, there have been approximately 350 claims filed—33 were decided in the tenant’s favor and 113 were decided in the owner’s favor. There have been close to 90 rulings that have provided for a civil penalty.”
The significance of 350 additional claims in a single year may not, at first blush, appear to be substantial, until you factor in considerations relating to (1) the number of tenants involved in a single case (often times they involve a multitude of tenants from a single building); and (2) the time required to dispose of these types of cases.
Theoretically, this should result in a substantial increase in the payment of civil penalties. For example, if the respondent/landlord fails to correct the conditions or violations as required by an order to correct, the petitioner/tenant or the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) can restore the case to the calendar by order to show cause for a compliance hearing and assessment of civil penalties .
Typically, harassment cases are fact-intensive, requiring a lot of time to commence, litigate, and try, if necessary. The Legal Aid Society recommends that “the more specific and detailed your evidence, the stronger your case will be,” and lists over a half dozen items that tenants should utilize in order to demonstrate what a landlord has done to rise to the level of “harassment,” including records or logs kept of the harassment; letters or emails from or to the landlord; records of complaints to the landlord; records of complaints to government agencies; violations placed by government agencies; pictures or videos of harassment.
In 2012, the Chief Judge’s Task Force to Expand Legal Services was charged with a mission, and that was to “(1) study, analyze, and develop recommendations on all aspects of civil legal services to low-income New Yorkers; (2) issue recommendations for improvement; and (3) collaborate on access-to-justice issues.
The Task Force prepared and submitted their report on Nov. 5, 2012 to address the difficulties faced by tens of thousands of litigants in summary proceedings and to generate practical recommendations to improve access to justice.”
One of the Task Force’s primary recommendations related to providing increased availability of legal services for tenants facing possible eviction. In March 2014, the New York City Council’s Committee on Courts and Legal Services focused and addressed the issue head-on, culminating in the Council’s historic passage in August 2017 of a Local Law to amend the Administrative Code in relation to providing legal services for tenants who are subject to eviction proceedings.
New York City was the first city to guarantee lawyers to tenants facing eviction . The result was a marked increase in the number of landlord-tenant cases where both sides were represented by counsel, which, naturally, resulted in clogged court calendars. Note, that the City’s program was be phased in over a five-year period. The effect of the foregoing can be seen from a comparison of “first available dates” being given out by the Housing Court judges throughout the City. Before the law’s enactment, one could routinely expect to receive a two-week adjournment of a case; since the law’s passage the length of an adjournment has steadily grown to the point where it is not unusual to see a one- or two-month adjournment of a Housing Court case. Thus, it appears that although the number of active filings is below what it was pre-COVID, the cases are taking significantly longer to work their way through the system.
The pinnacle of this century’s legislation intended to expand tenant protections was, of course, the 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA). [The NYS Homes and Community Renewal provided an overview of some of the most significant changes and
their impact on rent-regulated tenants]. The Cardozo Law Review has stated that “the passage of the HSTPA was the realization of long-fought-for goals by New York’s Democratic lawmakers and tenants’ rights advocates, which were, among other things, to “provide permanent rent regulation protections to covered buildings” and “extend tenant protections statewide.”
The New York State Bar Association, in a multi-part article (penned by the Hon. Gerald Lebovits, John S. Lansden, and Damon P. Howard) referred to the legislation as “as a tectonic shift in New York rent regulation and landlord-tenant law and procedure, a shift that alters the balance of power between landlords and tenants.”
One of the major provisions of the HSTPA was the regulation that repealed the “sunset provision” (the date by which the legislature was required to renew the rent laws in order to prevent their automatic expiration). In Part II of their article, the authors observed that, “for tenants, repeal of the sunset provision eliminates a perpetual, existential threat to rent regulation and is justified by New York’s long-lasting shortage of affordable housing.
For many tenant advocates, the sunset provision allowed landlords to water down protections in each renewal by leveraging tenants’ fear that the law would not be renewed.” They also note that tenants maintain that “for those who have a rent-stabilized apartment, the limitations on rent and prohibitions on being evicted without just cause are a matter of survival.” Viewed from the tenant perspective, these laws were long-overdue and essential.
While the three judges writing the State Bar articles concluded that the impact that the HSTPA has had on landlords and tenants is undeniable, what might be fairly debatable is whether that impact had the desired effect. For example, a survey jointly produced by the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), the city’s leading real estate trade association and the Rent Stabilization Association (RSA) produced a report highlighting the “disastrous effects that the HSTPA has had on NYC’s rent-stabilized housing stock.” Another organization, buildingtheskyline.org, concluded that while “the law was intended to help renters, it is, in fact, harming them; HSTPA is driving the slow but inexorable decay of the low-income housing stock.”
While Forbes reported that “Six years after New York State passed the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), owners of rent stabilized buildings are struggling with rising expenses, declining income, falling values and increasing distress,” others maintain that the law did not go far enough.
For example, the Community Service Society (a group that has “worked with and for New Yorkers since 1843 to promote economic opportunity and champion an equitable city and state”) contends that “landlord harassment persists in rent stabilized buildings, suggesting more enforcement and ongoing organizing are necessary,” and according to their surveys , not only is knowledge about rent laws declining among tenants, but “tenants
unaware of their rights under HSTPA are more vulnerable to unlawful rent hikes, harassment, and displacement.”
From 2009 through 2019, the New York State Unified Court System kept track of all civil court case load activity, including, specifically, Housing Court, evictions, and summary proceedings. For the period from 2019, the newly created Division of Technology and Court Research (DTCR) began recording and tracking court data and statistics. Review of the statistics provided by the DTCR show that while in 2019, there were 262,165 eviction filings statewide, during COVID, those numbers dropped to roughly 108,928 in 2020, 69,313 in 2021, gradually rose to 216,654 in 2023, and dropped in 2024 to 200,596. Unquestionably, that is a large number of eviction proceedings, and a significant drop. What was the cause of the drop?
The statistics are somewhat conflicting, depending on whose source you reference. For example, according to a May 2 blog from New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, “eviction rates have returned to levels comparable to before the pandemic and contributed directly to the City’s ballooning shelter population.” Lander states that “following the expiration of the eviction moratorium in January 2021, the number of active eviction cases in New York City rose 440%, from approximately 33,000 cases to 177,000 cases.
However, based on information provided by the Legal Services Corporation , the Eviction Lab (“a team of researchers, students, and website architects who believe that a stable, affordable home is central to human flourishing and economic mobility”), has provided statistics suggesting that the downward trend in eviction filings has actually continued. Their numbers, based on 2025 year-to-date filings (last updated July 1), reveal a 14% decline in the average number of eviction filings for the same period across 2023 and 2024; they also concluded that there were 113,852 eviction filings over the past 12 months, representing what they characterized as a 10% drop for the same period across 2023-2024.
Statistics provided by the Furman Center (a joint center of the New York University School of Law and the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service established in 1995, that “advances research and debate on housing, neighborhoods, and urban policy” supports the conclusion that even before COVID, there was a marked decline in eviction filings. Specifically, not only did eviction filings in New York City decline each year from 2013 through 2019, but that they “decreased by about one third in New York City between 2013 and 2019, with the largest annual decrease occurring between 2018 and 2019.” They state that “between 2013 and 2019, total filings fell about one third from 198,283 filings in 2013 to 139,614 filings in 2019.
Another example: pursuant to the NYC Fair Chance Act Housing Law (Local Law 24), as of Jan. 1 certain housing providers are prohibited from considering most parts of a criminal record at any time during the housing application process. The Coalition for the Homeless hails the Act as “a victory for housing equity in NY.”
As indicated, supra , the passage of the HSTPA in 2019 was significant. But the biggest change in the last five years was the Good Cause Eviction law (Real Property Law Article 6-A) that went into effect on April 20, 2024. As prominently stated on the city’s website, “under this law, landlords cannot evict tenants without a valid reason (“good cause”) and tenants can challenge unreasonable rent increases in Housing Court if they are evicted for nonpayment of rent. Tenants covered by the Good Cause Eviction law also have the right to renew their leases, and landlords cannot end a tenancy without a legitimate reason for doing so.”
And finally, one must consider that an unintended result of some of the amendments is that landlords have effectively been disincentivized from commencing eviction proceedings against a tenant who is paying their rent, but who may be in violation of their lease or the law (e.g., the tenant is illegally subletting or they no longer maintain the apartment for their own use as their primary residence).
Previously, if a tenant violated their lease and the owner succeeded in evicting that tenant there was the opportunity to renovate a rent stabilized unit and increase the rent and obtain a vacancy increase. The statutory elimination of both the vacancy increase and the incentive to improve units has been eliminated.
As such, there is no economic incentive to enforce a lease violation unless, for example, the tenant’s conduct
impacts upon the other tenants’ ability to use and enjoy the premises, or it creates a dangerous condition that jeopardizes the life, safety, health, or well-being of the building’s occupants. Otherwise, there is no reason for a landlord to expend the money to get a vacancy and then lose rent during the turnover period for what would essentially be a de minimis rent increase.
While tenant groups may laud the net effect, it overlooks the unintended impact, which is that it results in no investment in rent stabilized apartments (a fact which is demonstrated by the huge decrease in value of rent stabilized buildings since the elimination of both the individual apartment improvement (“AIA”) increases and vacancy lease increases).
So, Where Does That Leave Us?
While eviction and homeless rates steadily climbed during the 2000s (peaking at 29,000 court-ordered evictions in 2013), according to an Annual Report issued by the New York City Office of Civil Justice, June 2016, and actual eviction numbers appear to be down , there is no shortage of landlord-tenant disputes, and the Housing Court seemingly has more than enough cases to keep its judges and staff busy.
The available alternatives to Housing Court are the Civil Court and Supreme Court, two forums where the summary nature provided for under Article 7 of the RPAPL does not come into play. Thus, the Housing Court remains the go-to venue of choice for the speedy resolution of many, if not most, simple landlord-tenant related cases. Summary proceedings, at least theoretically, afford both landlords and tenants swift and effective adjudication of their disputes. Indeed, Article 7 of the RPAPL was specifically formulated with this goal at the heart of its purpose. So, regardless of the decline in the total number of eviction proceedings filed, there remains a need for the expeditious and relatively inexpensive resolution of landlord-tenant disputes, and that place is still the Housing Court.
Matthew E. Eiben Counsel
Brett M. Stack Counsel
Co-op and Condominium Voting Agreements: Limitations and Opportunities
New York Law Journal– June 17, 2025
By Matthew E. Eiben and Brett M. Stack
New York Business Corporation Law (BCL) is the primary statute that guides governance for cooperatives in New York. BCL §620 expressly permits two or more shareholders to agree in writing to vote in the manner set forth in the agreement.
A tool used most often in corporate America, voting agreements are utilized by shareholders to secure or maintain control of the board, and/or otherwise effectuate desired corporate actions such as mergers, asset sales, or securing amendments to the corporation’s governing documents (e.g. by-laws, certificates of incorporation, etc.).
While these use-cases can certainly apply to cooperative and condominium buildings, there is little discussion as to how and when that may be appropriate and enforceable.
New York Business Corporation Laws
The following provisions of the BCL apply directly to voting agreements:
1. BCL §501(c): One-Share, One-Vote Rule
• Absent contrary provision in the certificate of incorporation, each share is entitled to one vote.
• Limitation: Cannot circumvent the “one share, one vote” standard via agreements that disproportionately empower certain shareholders unless explicitly authorized in governing documents.
• Voting agreements must not violate the statutory presumption of equal voting rights unless the corporation’s certificate of incorporation allows for unequal voting classes.
2.
BCL §620:
Shareholder Voting Agreements
• Shareholders may enter into
written agreements regarding how they will vote their shares.
• Agreements can be perpetual or limited in term.
• Note: While permissible, voting agreements cannot bind directors in their fiduciary capacity or circumvent board authority — i.e., they can’t usurp board decision-making under the guise of shareholder voting.
3. BCL §713: Conflicts of Interest
• If a voting agreement is used to entrench interested directors, or is part of a scheme to approve a conflicted transaction, the underlying transaction can be voidable.
• Requires (i) disclosure of director interest in transactions and (ii) approval by majority vote of disinterested directors or shareholders.
The New York Condominium Act (Real Property Law Article 9-B)
It is important to know that for Condominiums, the New York Condominium Act (Real Property Law Article 9-B) Section 339-v requires the by-laws to specify how votes are conducted and how decisions are made (e.g., quorum, voting thresholds).
The Condominium Act does not expressly address voting agreements among unit owners in the way the BCL does for shareholders. Voting agreements may be permissible among condo unit owners as private contracts, but they are not specifically authorized under the Condominium Act.
Given the foregoing, case law on the subject can provide clarity. Enforceability hinges on contract law principles and must not violate the declaration, by-laws, or public policy.
Further, absent controlling provisions
of the Real Property Law (“RPL”), Courts will likely look to the BCL for guidance, as public policy dictates. For example, in Pomerance v McGrath, 104 AD3d 440, 442 (1st Dept. 2013), the Appellate Division First Department held that though not expressly provided for in the Real Property Law a condominium “unit owner should be given rights similar to those of a shareholder under Business Corporation Law §624” [pertaining to the right to inspect corporate books and records].
Voting Agreements Must Not Run Afoul with Parity BCL 501(c)
In one recent decision, the First Department considered whether such voting agreements run afoul with the parity requirements set forth in BCL 501(c) (see Oliver 889 LLC v. 889 Realty Inc., 212 AD3d 531 [1st Dept. 2023]). BCL 501(c) requires that “each share shall be equal to every other share of the same class.”
In Oliver 889 LLC , the First Department was asked to determine whether a voting agreement entered into between a cooperative corporation and a shareholder and proprietary lessee of a commercial retail unit was void under BCL §501(c).
The lower court had invalidated the agreement, finding it inconsistent with the principle of share parity. On appeal, the cooperative emphasized that BCL §501(c) does not prohibit such agreements—and that in fact, BCL §620(a) explicitly authorizes them.
The Appellate Division concluded that while BCL does indeed authorize voting agreements, the subject agreement essentially terminated the commercial shareholders’ voting rights since it continued in perpetuity and so was unenforceable.
Given Oliver 889, it would seem that so long as the voting agreement is sufficiently limited in scope and duration, a voting agreement between shareholders should be enforceable. As the Appellate Division has previously recognized, “a contract that is clear on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.” This principle is particularly strong in commercial contexts. In Bank of New York Mellon v. WMC Mortg., LLC, 151 AD3d 72 (1st Dept. 2017), the court affirmed that “commercial contracts negotiated at arm’s length by sophisticated, counseled businesspeople” are entitled to enforcement according to their terms—even where the outcome may later seem disadvantageous to one party.
Boards should note that nothing in BCL §501(c)—even when applied to residential cooperatives—prohibits shareholders from entering into voting agreements. Where residential and commercial shareholders differ in voting power, BCL §501(c) allows flexibility: either sharebased or unit-based voting structures may be adopted, as long as proper procedures are followed.
Courts Will Uphold Voting Agreements and Even Reform Documents to Reflect Them
In Oliver 889 the Appellate Division First Department also confirmed that New York courts will uphold severable contract provisions—even if other provisions are deemed unenforceable (see also Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63 [1997]). The agreement in Oliver 889 contained a severability clause, allowing its enforceable terms to survive any judicial scrutiny of its more contentious aspects.
Moreover, the possibility of equitable reformation is not theoretical. The court in Ench v. Breslin, 241 AD2d 475 (2nd 1997) reformed a corporation’s certificate of incorporation to reflect a unanimous voting requirement that
had been memorialized in a shareholder agreement. Even though the formalities of certificate amendment had not been observed, the court honored the parties’ intent because no third-party rights were impaired.
Boards and managers should understand that the courts are not blind to the practical realities of closely held entities like cooperatives. Where documents reflect a common understanding—especially as part of a bargained-for transaction—courts may reform or enforce them despite technical deficiencies.
Bad Faith Undermines Challenges to Voting Agreements
The appellate brief in Oliver 889 also highlighted the importance of good faith. The plaintiff in that case had openly admitted its intent to use a technical voting majority to rewrite the proprietary lease and business terms of a negotiated commercial deal. The cooperative argued that this “bad faith” conduct barred the plaintiff from seeking equitable relief to invalidate the voting agreement. As courts have long held, a party with “unclean hands” cannot seek to invalidate a contract it previously relied upon.
For instance, in Sackman Enterprises Inc. v. Bd. of Managers of Chesterfield Condo., 192 AD3d 565 (1st Dept. 2021) the First Department held that a plaintiff’s bad faith
rendered equitable relief “unavailing”. And in Ross v. Moyer, 286 AD2d 610 (1st Dept. 2001) a party who had breached fiduciary duties was barred from obtaining equitable remedies altogether.
These doctrines are particularly salient for co-op and condo boards, which often rely on stable governance structures to protect building operations and finances. Voting agreements that preserve those structures should not be lightly undone, especially where one party is attempting to exploit ambiguities for leverage.
Judicial Reluctance To Undermine Commercial Real Estate Transactions
New York courts have consistently emphasized that commercial certainty is a “paramount concern” in real estate transactions. In Wallace v. 600 Partners Co. , 86 N.Y.2d 543 (1995), the Court of Appeals stated that contracts—especially those involving real property— should be interpreted to give effect to the parties’ intentions, and that the need for stability in real estate is particularly strong.
Thus, where voting agreements are part of share sales, lease negotiations, or building conversions, boards should ensure that the agreements are documented clearly and that the intentions of all parties are evident in the record.
In return, they can expect courts to uphold those agreements—so long as they were entered into voluntarily, disclosed appropriately, and do not violate express statutory prohibitions.
Best Practices
Voting agreements are a powerful tool for ensuring stability in cooperative and condominium governance, particularly in buildings with mixed-use or commercial components. However, to withstand scrutiny and avoid unintended consequences, these agreements must be carefully crafted and implemented. Based on recent case law and statutory guidance, boards and their counsel should consider the following best practices:
Use Written Agreements That Clearly State Intent. Ensure voting agreements are in writing, signed by all parties, and drafted in plain, unambiguous language. Clearly state the purpose of the agreement (e.g., to preserve residential control or to ensure continuity in board governance).
Tie Agreements to Share Transactions or Corporate Events. Courts are more likely to uphold a voting agreement that is part of a bargained-for exchange, such as a share sale or lease grant. Document the agreement contemporaneously with the transaction and cross-reference it in proprietary leases or shareholder ledgers.
Include Severability and Reformation Clauses. Add a severability clause so that even if one provision is invalidated, the rest of the agreement remains enforceable (see Christian v. Christian). Consider a clause expressly permitting unit-based voting if share-based voting is deemed unenforceable under BCL §501(c).
Include Fiduciary Carve-Out Clauses. Using a voting agreement to push through a self-dealing or conflicted transaction may trigger scrutiny under BCL §713 or provisions of the By-Laws applicable to interested transactions, which requires disclosure of director interest in transactions and typically a majority vote of disinterested directors or shareholders.
Account for Statutory Compliance. Familiarize counsel with BCL §620(a) (permitting shareholder voting agreements), and confirm that the agreement does not conflict with any express limitations under BCL §501(c) or §609. In buildings with commercial units, consider whether BCL §501(c) even applies, as it expressly references “residential premises.”
Ensure Disclosure and Board Authorization. If directors or officers have a financial interest in the voting arrangement, comply with BCL §713 by disclosing material facts and seeking board or shareholder approval. Avoid even the appearance of self-dealing to maintain enforceability and avoid later challenges.
Be Prepared to Defend Against Claims of Inequity. Courts will not assist parties acting in bad faith. If a shareholder attempts to void a voting agreement after benefiting from it, equitable doctrines like estoppel and unclean hands may apply (see Sackman Enterprises and Ross v. Moyer). Maintain a clear paper trail showing the original intent and consistent reliance on the voting arrangement.
Review and Update Governing Documents. Ensure that the certificate of incorporation, by-laws, and proprietary leases do not conflict with or undermine the voting agreement. Where applicable, consider reforming the certificate of incorporation to reflect unit-based or other agreed-upon voting structures—even if all statutory formalities haven’t yet been completed (see Ench v. Breslin).
For condominiums, board’s should review the condominium’s by-laws carefully as some contain clauses that restrict proxy arrangements or coordinated voting. It is recommended to use a stand-alone agreement that is narrow in scope, carefully drafted, and does not conflict with governing documents. Remember to be mindful of fiduciary duties if the agreement relates to board election or decision making.
Consult Experienced Counsel. Before entering into or enforcing a voting agreement, boards should consult with attorneys who understand both cooperative law and corporate governance. Voting agreements are not “one-size-fits-all” and must be tailored to each building’s structure, history, and shareholder composition.
Gary M. Rosenberg Member
Deborah E. Riegel Member
Good Cause Eviction Law: One Year Later, How Judges Have Applied the Law
New York Law Journal– June 3, 2025
By Gary M. Rosenberg and Deborah E. Riegel
The Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) has been the law in New York State for the past year. As described in our June 4, 2024 column, GCEL regulates residential apartments in New York City, as well as other municipalities that elected to implement GCEL, with respect to units not otherwise subject to rent regulation.
In the year since its implementation, the courts have begun to interpret GCEL, both procedurally and substantively. This article will review the evolving body of law and explain how it impacts owners’ compliance with GCEL.
Tenant Non-Payment Under GCEL
It is generally true, that most owners just want their tenants to pay their rent. It follows then, that having to renew a tenant’s lease where rent is not being paid is both aggravating and fundamentally unjust.
In recognition of the fact that owners should not be required to continue to lease to tenants who fail to comply with the basic requirement to pay their rent, GCEL provides that an owner has a good cause basis to refuse to renew a lease where ”[T]he landlord is not renewing the lease because the tenant has failed to pay rent due and owing, and the rent due or owing, or any part thereof, did not result from a rent increase which is unreasonable.” (See, Real Property Law §216(1)). Although seemingly clear on its face, this provision has been the subject of a series of decisions in Housing Court.
In 1497 Gates LLC v. Torres , LT 307806/24, Queens County Housing Court Judge Logan Schiff initially denied the petitioner’s request for a final judgment of possession after inquest in a holdover proceeding, where the premises sought to be recovered was subject to GCEL, but the petitioner alleged it had a good cause
basis to evict based on non-payment of rent, totaling $29,890.00.
Judge Schiff initially determined that, notwithstanding the language of the statute, the petitioner was relegated to commencement of a non-payment proceeding. The court held that:
In sum, in order to best harmonize the grounds for removal in GCEL with the overarching statutory framework for summary evictions proceedings embodied within RPAPL 711, 731 and 749, and statutory right of a tenant to withhold based on a landlord’s breach of the warranty of habitability as codified in RPL 235-b, and in the absence of an unequivocal statement from the legislature that they intended to deviate from the traditional procedure for eviction based on nonpayment, the summary remedy for enforcing a routine failure to pay rent against a GCEL-tenant must remain via a nonpayment proceeding, not a non-renewal holdover.
On consideration of the petitioner’s motion to modify or vacate his order, after a lengthy and thorough analysis of GCEL and the rights granted to owners, Judge Schiff reversed his prior order, and acknowledged that the express statutory language authorized the petitioner to seek possession in a holdover proceeding based on the failure to tender rent, as follows:
[B]ecause the statute unambiguously authorizes a nonrenewal holdover premised on a tenant’s failure to pay rent, this court erred when it concluded that such a proceeding is not the “appropriate judicial action or proceeding” under the statute (RPAPL 216(1))[sic]. While a nonpayment proceeding may be the more economical mechanism for enforcing a default in payment of rent insofar as it requires a predicate good faith 14-day rent demand that properly itemizes the rent due and affords the
tenant the opportunity to avoid litigation by satisfying the demand prior to commencement, it is not the role of the courts to override clear legislative enactments.
More recently, in RP Wimbeldon Owner, LLC v. Theresa Chisolm, LT 313196/24, New York Court Housing Court Judge Adam Meyers granted a tenant’s motion to dismiss a holdover proceeding based on non-payment of rent, pursuant to GCEL. Although the tenant did not challenge the petitioner’s right to elect not to renew her lease based on GCEL, she essentially claimed that the predicate notices and the petition were defective, by virtue of their failure to contain the same factual allegations that are required in a non-payment proceeding.
At issue was the claim that neither the GCEL notice, nor the Notice of Non-Renewal required by RPL 226-c, specified what amounts were alleged to be in arrears, and/ or the periods for which they were sought, so as to give the tenant a sufficient opportunity to cure. Tenant then alleged that the petition was defective based on the deficiencies in the predicate notices.
The decision analyzed the interplay between the GCEL notice and the Notice of Non-Renewal, which is separately required pursuant to RPL 226-c, and concluded that because the Notice of Non-Renewal stated that the basis for non-renewal derived from the GCEL non-payment of rent provision, the notice of non-renewal must particularize the claimed arrears. The court concluded that:
While [the Notice of Non-Renewal] recited the statutory provision on which the termination is based, it failed to clearly inform Respondent of the period for which the rent was due or the approximate sum owed. Rent demands that fail to provide such basic notice of alleged rent arrears are consistently rejected by the courts. Therefore, the Notice of Non-Renewal was unreasonable under the circumstances, and this holdover proceeding predicated thereupon must be dismissed.
Although nothing in either RPL 226-c or 231-c expressly requires an owner to provide this specificity, in reaching its conclusion, the court analogized to cases addressing termination of commercial leases based on non-payment of rent, as well as long-standing case law to the effect that termination notices based on a specific cause must be detailed enough to plead the underlying facts with sufficient particularity to be “reasonable in view of all attendant circumstances.” (See, Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hospital, 226 AD2d 4 (1st Dept. 1996).
Given that the petitioner was not seeking to terminate a lease, but rather was exercising its right not to renew the expiring lease, reliance on those lines of cases appears to be misplaced.
Nevertheless, pending any appellate rulings, there is a pragmatic solution to this issue and Judge Meyers decision provides a roadmap to avoid similar motions and the associated delay of recovery of possession—either recite the amounts due and the periods in which they accrued in your Notice of Non-Renewal or attach a rent ledger.
While this may lead to other challenges by a tenant as to the amounts that are claimed to be due, reviewing the
rent ledger in advance of serving the notice and ensuring that the ledger reflects a good faith approximation of the amounts claimed to be due.
Timing Issues Related to GCEL Notices
Although GCEL was effective immediately upon its enactment on April 20, 2024, the requirement to serve a notice pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) §231-c was not effective until Aug. 18, 2024.
The delay in the implementation of the notice requirement gave rise to a series of challenges to proceedings that were commenced prior to the enactment of GCEL, but were not heard prior to the effective date.
This was especially true in Kings and Queens County, where holdover proceedings may not be heard for months after the filing of a petition. As relates to GCEL, this had the unintended effect of creating a procedural quagmire whereby tenants alleged that holdover proceedings based on lease terminations that pre-dated GCEL were defective for failing to comply with GCEL.
In Qn. St, Albans Holdings v. Sands , LT 305136/24/QU, Judge Schiff was once again called upon to rule the newly enacted GCEL when the tenant alleged that the petition in the proceeding was defective should be dismissed because it did not comply with GCEL. In denying the tenant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding, Judge Schiff ruled as follows:
Although GCEL does not define the word “commence,” Civil Court Act (CCA) § 400 provides that an action or proceeding in Civil Court is “commenced by filing a notice of petition and petition…” The Appellate Terms in both the First and Second Departments have cited CCA §400 in concluding that the commencement date of a summary eviction proceeding in housing court, a specialized part within the Civil Court (see CCA § 110), is based on the date of filing (see Sebco Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc. v. Acosta, 66 Misc 3d 147[A] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]; Brown v. Felton, 58 Misc 3d 161[A] [App Term, 1st Dept 2018]; 92 Bergenbrooklyn, LLC v. Cisarano, 50 Misc 3d 21 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015] [“[W]e hold that a summary proceeding is commenced by filing in the Civil Court.”]).
Consistent with Sands , in NU18LLC v. Rosario , LT 332485/24/KI, the court concluded that:
Petitioner filed the petition and Notice of Petition in November of 2023. On April 26, 2024, petitioner served the petition and Notice of Petition—merely 6 days after GCEL was passed. Applying the Cisarano standard under these circumstances would lead to an unfair and retroactive effect. Numerous cases would be dismissed as defective despite the fact that when they were filed, they were proper. “The court presumes the legislature sought to avoid such a retroactive result inasmuch as it provided landlords with a one-hundred twenty-day cushion to comply with the new predicate notice requirements in GCEL...ln doing so, the legislature allowed non-renewal and termination notices served...before the passage of GCEL...to remain viable, indicative of a legislative intent to avoid invalidating legal papers that complied with the law when they were prepared.” QN St. Albans at* 3.
Nevertheless, in contrast to Sands and Rosario, in DOC Realty Mgt., Inc. v. Morales , LT 304022/24/QU, Judge Sanchez dismissed a proceeding where petitioner filed a petition on March 9, 2024, based on the expiration of the term of the lease. Although filed prior to the enactment of GCEL, the petition was not served until May 7, 2024 because the court assigned an initial return date of May 20, 2024.
In granting respondent’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the proceeding was not commenced until May 7, 2024 when the petition was served, rather than March 9, 2024 when it was filed. This distinction critically determined whether or not the owner was required to comply with GCEL.
The court therefore concluded notwithstanding the fact that the petition was filed prior to the effective date of GCEL, and the lease at issue expired prior to the enactment of GCEL, the petitioner was required to comply with the additional pleading requirements contained therein.
This issue will sunset once the proceedings commenced prior to the enactment of GCEL, but first calendared after its effective date, but it will remain a potential peril for owners whose case remain pending where a defense based on the failure to comply with GCEL has been raised in a tenant’s answer, but the case has not reached a trial or dispositive motion.
Conclusion
The Housing Court will continue to grapple with the interpretation and application of the GCEL and until the issues raised have been heard by the appellate courts, litigants will likely face a patchwork of decisions. Because GCEL was intended to provide additional protections to previously regulated tenants, hyper-vigilance with respect to compliance with its requirements may help to mitigate adverse outcomes.
PRESS RELEASES
Throughout the last quarter, R&E attorneys have had a number of remarkable achievements, including significant victories, successful closings, recognition by Best Lawyers and several well-earned promotions.
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. recognized among Crain’s NY 2025 Best Places to Work
For the third consecutive year, employees put leading law firm on prestigious list
September 18, 2025: For a third consecutive year, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. (R&E), has been named among Crain’s New York City Best Places to Work, reaffirming the firm’s long-standing commitment to its people and culture.
Crain’s New York Business partners with Workforce Research Group each year to conduct a comprehensive, two-part evaluation of thousands of NYC-based employers. The process includes an in-depth review of workplace policies, practices, and demographics, as well as confidential surveys in which employees rate their company’s culture, engagement, benefits, and work-life balance.
Since first participating in 2023, Rosenberg & Estis has risen from No. 98 in the rankings to 59 last year and 37 this year.
“Being named among Crain’s New York Business Best Places to Work for a third year is especially meaningful because it comes directly from our employees,” said Michael E. Lefkowitz, Managing Member. “We are proud to offer an employee-centric culture that prioritizes
personal-professional balance and making sure our team has the support and resources they need to grow, succeed, and deliver their best for our clients.”
This year’s honor comes as R&E continues to expand both in size and the range of services it offers, building on its well-established strengths in real estate transactions, tax, zoning, and regulatory counsel. The firm’s strategic growth has been matched by an intentional focus on cultivating top talent and supporting professional development across every level of the organization.
Founded in 1975, R&E is celebrated its 50th anniversary earlier this year, having grown from a two-person partnership to a firm of 180-plus professionals advising many of New York’s most prominent owners, lenders, investors, and commercial tenants. The firm has earned multiple
‘Best Places to Work’ honors recognizing its employee-first culture that supports work-life balance and enables its professionals to thrive.
Member
Joseph K.Kammerman Counsel
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. strengthens commercial litigation capabilities with two key hires
Alexander H. Shapiro joins as Member, Joseph J. Kammerman as Counsel as firm expands expertise in resolving complex business matters
Featuring Alexander H. Shapiro and Joseph J. Kammerman
September 16, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. (R&E), one of New York City’s preeminent full-service real estate law firms, announced the addition of leading attorneys Alexander H. Shapiro, as Member, and Joseph J. Kammerman, as Counsel, to further develop the firm’s rapidly growing general commercial litigation practice.
Rosenberg & Estis is recognized for delivering trusted counsel to the most prominent real estate owners, investors and managers for the past 50 years. With these additions expanding R&E’s commercial litigation practice, R&E is uniquely situated to advocate in the most complex, highstakes matters with market-leading precision and depth of insight, while preserving the agility and focus of its boutique model.
“Real estate law has evolved into an increasingly complex and multifaceted field, shaped by heightened regulatory oversight, sophisticated financial structures, and the growing intersection of property, corporate, and commercial interests,” said Michael E. Lefkowitz, Managing Member of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. “Clients require counsel capable of navigating disputes at the highest level and, with proven track records in handling complex commercial disputes, Alexander and Joseph are valuable additions to the firm as we continue to evolve with the real estate landscape.”
Shapiro and Kammerman join R&E’s other litigators, bringing with them their deep experience and expertise in complex commercial litigation,
including matters involving breach of contract, shareholder and partnership disputes and securities fraud, intellectual property, discovery in aid of foreign litigation (Section 1782), compliance and policy development, and white-collar investigations and fraud, thus broadening the breadth of R&E’s capabilities in these key litigation areas.
A seasoned trial and appellate advocate with decades of experience in private practice, government service, and corporate leadership, Shapiro has a proven track record of success in handling complex commercial disputes, white collar defense, and regulatory investigations in state and federal forums across the country. His distinguished background includes serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York and holding senior leadership roles at two Fortune 500 companies. Shapiro joined R&E from the boutique litigation firm Ford O’Brien Landy, LLP.
Shapiro holds a B.A. from Yale University, an M.Litt. from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Yale Law School. He is admitted to practice in New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Joseph J. Kammerman brings nearly a decade of experience as a litigator, previously practicing at Milbank LLP, where he was involved in high-profile commercial and white collar matters on behalf of private and public institutions across the country. Kammerman joined R&E to further expand his practice in the real estate industry while continuing to handle a wide range of the firm’s clients’ most complex and pressing commercial matters.
Alexander H. Shapiro
Kammerman is a graduate of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, J.D., and holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from Rutgers University. He is admitted to practice in New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
Said Shapiro, “Rosenberg & Estis has a longstanding reputation for excellence, and I am thrilled to be joining its exceptional team to help further develop its burgeoning complex commercial litigation practice. The firm’s expansion of its capabilities in this practice group reflects a commitment to handling sophisticated, high-stakes commercial matters with the same precision and insight that have defined its practice for 50 years. I look forward to delivering sound, thoughtful, and commercially-attuned advice, counsel and advocacy to a wide spectrum of clients.”
R&E’s growth in litigation complements its established strengths in real estate transactions, tax, zoning, and regulatory counsel. R&E continues to expand in size and the scope of work it handles. Its recent success in attracting top-tier talent reflects a long-standing commitment to cultivating a positive and supportive working environment. The firm has earned multiple ‘Best Places to Work’ honors recognizing its employee-first culture that supports work-life balance and enables its professionals to thrive.
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. successfully wins removal of former super using doctors office as his home
Attorneys employ legal strategy that secures use & occupancy, possession judgement
Featuring Alex M. Estis and Ariel S. Bresky
September 4, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, announced it successfully secured a property owner’s right to regain possession of a commercial unit in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood where a former building superintendent was squatting after being fired from his job.
Representing the owner of a mixeduse multi-family walkup building in Chelsea, Member Alex Estis and Counsel Ariel S. Bresky obtained a court order enforcing the eviction and securing a rare monetary judgment for retroactive use and occupancy of the basement property.
“This was a clear case of unlawful occupancy, but the legal complexities required a creative and strategic approach,” said Estis. “We not only obtained a judgment for fair market use and occupancy, but we also secured a court order enjoining further residential use and ultimately authorizing eviction.”
The 1,100-square-foot space, designated solely for commercial use and previously used as a doctor’s office, had been unlawfully occupied by the former building employee after he was dismissed in October 2024. The former super never held legal tenancy rights and violated both the building’s COO and multiple housing codes by using the space as a residential apartment.
Leveraging provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law and Administrative Code, the attorneys highlighted the hazardous nature of the illegal occupancy, which jeopardized the building’s insurance and violated safety standards. Their innovative legal
strategy enabled them to leverage the building’s commercial Certificate of Occupancy to prove the tenant’s residential use was unlawful, allowing the landlord to collect use and occupancy and seek removal.
Judge Gerald Lebovits denied the former super’s claims for tenant protections under residential housing laws which normally make use and occupancy fees hard to secure. Noting that Rosenberg & Estis had proven that the space is not legally residential and that residential tenant protections don’t apply, he granted a judgment of possession to the landlord, rejecting Defendant’s arguments and confirming that he had no legal right to stay in the premises
“In an environment where housing court matters often drag on for years, we resolved this case in just four and a half months,” said Bresky. “This outcome demonstrates that, with the right strategy, swift and favorable results are possible, even in complicated squatter and occupancy disputes.”
Ariel S. Bresky Counsel
Alex M. Estis Member
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. attorneys ranked among 2026 Best Lawyers in America
Six team members make prestigious list of nation’s leading legal minds
Featuring Luise A. Barrack, Deborah E. Riegel, Nicholas DiLorenzo, Stephen A. Millington, Jay H. Min and Zina S. Lyakhovetsky
August 21, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, announced that six of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, a leading guide to the nation’s top legal talent.
The 2026 editions of The Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America honor legal professionals who demonstrate exceptional skill, commitment, and impact in their practice areas.
Longtime honorees Luise A. Barrack and Deborah E. Riegel have once again been recognized among the nation’s top attorneys. Stephen Millington, Nick DiLorenzo, and Jay Min return for a second year in the Ones to Watch list, while Zina Lyakhovetsky makes her debut ranking in 2026.
“It’s a tremendous honor to see six of our attorneys acknowledged among the best in the country,” said Michael Lefkowitz, Managing Member of R&E. “With real estate law ranked among the top five most recognized practice areas, this milestone not only celebrates our 50-year legacy but also reinforces our standing as New York’s go-to full-service real estate law firm delivering trusted counsel across every facet of the industry.”
First published in 1983, Best Lawyers rankings are based entirely on peer review, with over 4.4 million evaluations submitted by more than 250,000 attorneys globally.
Elizabeth Petit, Director of Research & Development and Managing Editor at Best Lawyers, said, “Those included in this year’s edition stood out in an exceptionally crowded field and earned the respect of a larger, more discerning group of their professional peers. Their inclusion is a true testament to excellence in practice and reputation within the legal community.”
Rosenberg & Estis’ 2026 Best Lawyers are:
Luise A. Barrack: Luise is a Member of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. and heads the firm’s Litigation Department. She served as Managing Member from 2010-2020 and, under her leadership, the firm more than doubled in size and received the “Litigation Department of the Year: Real Estate” Award (2018) from the New York Law Journal. Clients come to Luise for her killer instincts tempered by her sage counsel. She is a staunch advocate for her clients, many of whom she has represented for more than 30 years. Her no-nonsense approach has helped shape Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. into the tough and highly respected law firm it is today.
Deborah E. Riegel: Over the course of her career, Deborah has successfully litigated cases of critical, industry-wide importance on a wide variety of complicated issues on behalf of some of the City’s most prominent owners and developers. As a Member of the firm’s Litigation Department, Deborah most notably served as lead counsel and successfully argued before the Court of Appeals in Matter of Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, a case which is considered one of the most impactful decisions for the real estate industry in decades. The Court of Appeals adopted R&E’s arguments and found the enactment of portions of the HSTPA of 2019 to be unconstitutional in their retroactive application, saving property owners millions of dollars in potential rent overcharges and avoiding catastrophic underwriting and financing consequences. Ms. Riegel is also a member of the adjunct faculty for Brooklyn Law School, teaching Real Estate Litigation, as well as a member of its Board of Trustees.
Luise A. Barrack Member
Deborah E. Riegel Member
Ones to Watch:
Stephen Millington: Since joining R&E in 2020, Stephen has emerged as one of the firm’s most accomplished young attorneys and was elevated to the rank of Counsel when he achieved notable success while taking the lead on a series of high-profile real estate transactions. Stephen represents landlords, tenants, developers, and property managers in commercial real estate transactions. Much of his practice is concentrated in the commercial leasing arena, where he provides his legal expertise in the complex New York City real estate market to clients of all types. While representing a roster of international clients, Stephen has overseen negotiations and completed lease transactions across the U.S., including California, Florida, and Texas.
Nicholas DiLorenzo: Nick joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2020 and is Counsel in the firm’s Tax Incentives & Affordable Housing Department. His practice focuses on real estate development, with a specialization in tax incentives, affordable housing, and development bonuses. Nick assists clients in obtaining real estate property tax exemption and abatement, securing bonus floor area development rights through various New York City programs, and negotiating land disposition agreements, regulatory agreements, and restrictive declarations with the City.
Nicholas
DiLorenzo Member
Stephen A. Millington Counsel
Jay Min: Jay joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2024 and is an Associate in the firm’s Litigation Department. He has litigated in all aspects of civil defense matters from pre-suit investigation through ADR/trial, including discovery and depositions. He brings a wealth of knowledge from over a decade of legal experience in insurance defense, banking, commercial, and real estate litigation and has represented institutional clients in commercial litigation and commercial mortgage foreclosure actions.
Zina S. Lyakhovetsky: Zina joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2022 and is Counsel with the firm’s Transactions Department. Lyakhovetsky represents lenders and borrowers in mortgage and mezzanine financings. She has experience in the drafting and negotiation of loan documents, SNDAs, estoppels, leases and joint venture agreements. Lyakhovetsky has also conducted extensive due diligence and reviewed and negotiated title coverage, survey, and zoning.
Jay H. Min Associate
Zina S. Lyakhovetsky Counsel
Deborah E. Riegel of Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. recognized by Chambers for third consecutive year
Legal honor acknowledges attorney’s expertise in high stakes real estate litigation
Featuring Deborah E. Riegel
August 13, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, announced that Deborah E. Riegel, Member of the firm’s Litigation Department, has been ranked for the third consecutive year by Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious legal directories in the world.
The honor recognizes Riegel’s consistent excellence in handling highstakes real estate and rent regulatory litigation, including complex matters under New York’s Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), class actions, and commercial contract disputes.
Chambers rankings are based on in-depth research and client interviews, and reflect a lawyer’s legal ability, professional conduct, client service, and market standing. Riegel’s continued recognition is a testament to her leadership in the field and her impact on some of the most consequential legal battles shaping New York City real estate law.
Riegel has built a national reputation through precedent-setting work, including her lead role in Regina Metropolitan, one of the most consequential appellate wins in New York real estate in recent years. Her successful argument before the New York State Court of Appeals prevented the retroactive application of the HSTPA, shielding landlords from millions in rent overcharge claims and preserving underwriting standards for the industry. She also secured one of the first court orders barring Airbnb and a tenant from listing an unregistered unit following the implementation of NYC’s Local Law 18. Representing S&P Associates of New York LLC, she successfully argued the case before Justice Suzanne Adams in New York State Supreme Court, setting a vital precedent in short-term rental enforcement. Over the course of
her career, Riegel has played a role in facilitating the development of some of the most prestigious sites in the City, whether by clearing the sites for development or defending against claims that would delay such development.
Beyond the courtroom, Riegel is deeply committed to legal education and professional development. She serves as a Trustee of Brooklyn Law School, where she also teaches as an adjunct professor, mentoring students and guiding aspiring attorneys on their professional journeys. She is a Past President of the BLS Alumni Board, founding member of the Women’s Leadership Circle, and was most recently appointed by the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York to serve as one of only two owner’s representatives on the Housing Court Advisory Council, in addition to her service on the NYC Bar Association Judiciary Committee. Her civic leadership includes serving as Past President of the Tri-State Jewish National Fund and as a National Board Member.
“Deborah’s work continues to shape the legal landscape of New York real estate,” said Michael Lefkowitz, Managing Member at Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. “Her Chambers ranking is a well-deserved recognition of both her legal acumen and her unwavering commitment to clients, colleagues, and the next generation of legal professionals.”
Chambers USA, an authoritative legal directory published by Chambers and Partners, ranks leading attorneys and law firms throughout the United States based on extensive independent research and client interviews. Renowned for its rigorous methodology and impartial analysis, Chambers USA is widely regarded as a benchmark for excellence in the legal profession across a broad spectrum of practice areas and industries.
Deborah E. Riegel Member
Attorneys navigate complex easement process to enable restoration of historic National Arts Club
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., work ensures preservation work can move forward
Featuring Bradley S. Silverbush and Ariel S. Bresky
August 11, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, announced that the firm’s attorneys have successfully negotiated the intricate legal groundwork necessary for the $3.3 million façade preservation and rehabilitation of the National Arts Club’s historic Tilden Mansion on Gramercy Park in Manhattan.
Senior Member Bradley Silverbush and Counsel Ariel Bresky worked on securing critical licenses, negotiating neighbor permissions with landmarked neighbors such as the Players Club and 13 Gramercy Park, and addressing key addenda that emerged as the project unfolded.
The attorneys’ work ensured that the Club — one of the oldest literary and arts institutions in the world — could move forward with essential exterior repairs to its 19th-century brownstone and granite façade, an architectural treasure designed by Calvert Vaux.
“Housing a cultural institution of this stature in a landmarked building on a privately managed park is both a privilege and a legal challenge,” said Silverbush, who led the negotiations. “It required a deep understanding of both the client’s needs and the nuances of historic neighbor relationships.”
The legal team navigated complex access and scheduling constraints to accommodate the Club’s ongoing cultural programming and events. Among the unique legal hurdles was securing a rooftop access license to repair a newly discovered commemorative plaque, a task that had to be undertaken with sensitivity
to both the building’s structure and the surrounding properties.
“Our firm is proud to support the National Arts Club’s vision and the preservation of one of New York’s most storied cultural landmarks,” said Bresky. “We are especially honored to contribute to the Club’s mission of public access to the arts.”
The restoration comes at a pivotal time for the Club as it celebrates its 127th anniversary. In addition to grants from a variety of government entities, the Club is raising matching funds to complete the $3.3 million project. The initiative is part of a broader effort to reinvigorate the Club’s mission and facilities ensuring the building and its programming can continue to inspire new generations.
Added Silverbush, “Rosenberg & Estis’s contribution to the renovation underscores the importance of legal stewardship in safeguarding cultural institutions, ensuring that historic preservation, neighbor cooperation, and vibrant programming can all thrive in harmony.”
Ariel S. Bresky Counsel
Bradley S. Silverbush Member
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. advises the Durst Organization on $1.3 Billion financing of One Five One Times Square
CMBS deal is one of the largest in Manhattan this year
Featuring Gary M. Rosenberg, Eric S. Orenstein, David B. Horn, Zachary M. Rockoff and Zina S. Lyakhovetsky
August 6, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, announced it represented The Durst Organization in the structuring and closing of a $1.3 billion commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) financing secured by One Five One, the 48-story, Class A, LEED Gold certified, 1.8 million-squarefoot trophy office tower located at 151 West 42nd Street in Times Square. One Five One was developed and is owned by The Durst Organization.
One of the largest CMBS deals in Manhattan this year, the transaction involved complex structuring and required comprehensive legal coordination among the lending and borrower teams. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America served as co-originators of the loan. The lending group was led by Barry Goldman of Wells Fargo. Lender’s counsel was Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, which was led by Holly Marcille Chamberlain.
The Durst team was led by Douglas Durst, Jody Durst, Lucas Durst and Ira Marx. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Members Gary M. Rosenberg, Eric S. Orenstein and David B. Horn and Counsel Zachary M. Rockoff and Zina S. Lyakhovetsky advised Durst on all legal aspects of the transaction, including negotiation of loan documents, structuring of reserve accounts, review of ground lease terms, and
Eric S. Orenstein
coordination with lenders’ counsel. Chatham Financial provided financial advice to The Durst Organization on this transaction and the Chatham Financial team was led by Andrew Thornfeldt and Matthew Rauh. The interest rate was 5.865% and the loan was for a term of five years with a Maturity Date of August 6, 2030.
“This financing underscores the enduring strength of premier office assets in core Manhattan markets and reflects Durst’s ongoing commitment to long-term asset value,” said Rosenberg. “We are honored to advise Durst in this milestone transaction and proud to have helped navigate the legal complexities associated with a multilender CMBS execution of this scale.”
Proceeds of the loan will also fund tenant improvements, closing costs, capital expenditures and return of equity. The financing reflects a loan-to-value ratio based on an estimated property valuation of approximately $2.3 billion.
One Five One, formerly known as 4 Times Square, underwent $150 million in repositioning following the departures of Condé Nast and Skadden Arps. The property is currently 92% leased to major tenants including TikTok, Nasdaq, BMO Capital Markets, and Venable LLP. The tower also includes over 72,000 square feet of flagship retail and premier signage assets.
Gary M. Rosenberg Member
David B. Horn Member
Zina S. Lyakhovetsky Counsel
Zachary M. Rockoff Counsel
Member
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. completes $145M refinancing for luxury Tribeca hotel
Goldman Sachs funds new senior mortgage for Hôtel Barrière Fouquet New York
Featuring Michael E. Lefkowitz, Sean M. Garahan, Jenna C. Corcoran and Olivia D. Morri
August 6, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., celebrating 50 years as one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, announced it represented the borrower in a $145 million refinancing for the five-star Hôtel Barrière Fouquet located at 456 Greenwich St. in New York’s trendy Tribeca neighborhood, the first U.S. location for the storied French brand.
Managing Member Michael E. Lefkowitz and Member Sean M. Garahan guided a team that included Associates Jenna Corcoran and Olivia Morri that represented the borrower, CBCS Washington Street LP, in arranging the new senior mortgage loan with affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co. Attorneys from Haynes and Boone LLP represented the lender.
The loan will replace construction financing for the development of the 97-key hotel, which opened in 2022 and has quickly become a Tribeca standout. With a classic Parisian brasserie, luxurious spa, art deco interiors, and a private screening room, Hôtel Barrière Fouquet’s New York offers an intimate yet opulent guest experience in one of Manhattan’s most sought-after neighborhoods.
Michael
E. Lefkowitz
Managing Member
Sean M. Garahan
Member
“This refinancing replaces development capital and positions the asset for long-term success,” said Garahan. “It marks a significant vote of confidence in the asset and in the long-term value of luxury hospitality in Manhattan.”
Garahan and Lefkowitz advised the client through a multi-layered process that included replacing original construction and mezzanine financing, provided by South Korea-based Hana Financial Investment, and navigating a challenging ground lease structure.
“This deal is an example of Rosenberg & Estis’ strength in managing complex real estate transactions,” said Lefkowitz. “This was a sophisticated capital restructuring for a high-value asset in one of the most competitive markets in the country. We were proud to help structure and execute the deal with a marquee institutional lender.”
Garahan recently joined Rosenberg & Estis as part of its growing Transactions practice, which is focused on guiding clients through acquisitions, financings, restructurings, and development projects across New York City.
Jenna C. Corcoran Associate
Olivia D. Morri
Associate
Court declares tenant forged lease in real estate dispute over Midtown deli
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. secures major victory and attorneys’ fees for owner of Manhattan commercial building
Featuring Alex M. Estis, Norman Flitt and Laura A. Raheb
July 31, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, secured a major victory for its client 35 West Realty Co. LLC, after a New York State Supreme Court judge found that a disputed lease amendment produced by a kosher Midtown Manhattan delicatessen was a forgery.
Judge Margaret A. Chan issued a declaratory judgment in favor of Rosenberg & Estis’ client, use and occupancy costs and attorney’s fees, nearly concluding a 10-year legal battle over the eatery’s tenancy at 35 West 57th Street.
In 2014, nearly a decade after the building was acquired by 35 West Realty Co. LLC, deli operator Booston LLC, doing business as the Great American Health Bar, produced a lease amendment purportedly signed in 2005 by the previous landlord that extended its occupancy by 20 years, well beyond what had been previously represented and documented and stated by the eatery itself in previous court fillings to be the term of its lease. The document bore the signature of the building’s former owner, who had died several years earlier.
Rosenberg & Estis Members Norman Flitt and Alex M. Estis, with Counsel Laura Raheb challenged the amendment as fake, arguing that it had never been disclosed during prior litigation – when other lease amendments had been cited – and that its sudden appearance after the seller’s death was too good to be true.
A handwriting expert retained by the plaintiff testified that
the signature on the 2005 amendment did not match the deceased former owner’s signature on previous lease amendments. Ironically, the defense’s own handwriting expert discredited the previous amendment documents that both sides had acknowledged were valid, further undermining the defendant’s credibility.
Said Flitt, “Our client is pleased with the court’s decision, which recognized that the deli owner’s claims were as fabricated as the documents he submitted. Today’s ruling demonstrates that there’s nothing kosher about forgery.”
Added Estis, “Booston’s claims were too convenient to be credible and the only logical conclusion was that the disputed amendment was indeed a forgery. This decision sends a strong message that you can’t fabricate your way into a better deal and expect to get away with it.”
The decision brings closure to a case that highlighted both the potential for abuse in commercial leasing and the value of methodical, expert legal work. The plaintiff’s legal team remained focused and strategic throughout more than a decade of litigation–drawn out through various procedural actions and filings as well as the COVID pandemic–meticulously dismantling the defendant’s claims and establishing the facts before the court.
As a result of the ruling, the court declared the forged lease void and awarded the landlord entitlement to legal fees along with further proceedings to determine additional financial damages such as unpaid use and occupancy.
Alex M. Estis Member
Norman Flitt Member
Laura A. Raheb Counsel
Attorneys secure legal victory in Midtown Manhattan construction dispute
Rosenberg & Estis secures rare dismissal of RPAPL § 881 petition
Featuring Michael A. Pensabene and Brendan J. Derr
July 30, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, has prevailed in a dispute over access rights to an adjacent property in Midtown Manhattan by a developer trying to build a 47-story glass tower next door.
The ruling confirms that, although time is literally money in New York City construction, developers and their counsel should not be too hasty to commence an RPAPL § 881 proceeding.
On July 11, 2025, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Judge Verna L. Saunders ordered Joseph Stavrach’s Triangle Assets and David Halberstam of Bruklyn Builders back to the drawing board in a rare denial of their RPAPL § 881 petition for a license to access the landmarked Beaux Arts apartment building at 307 East 44th St. in Turtle Bay.
“The Court agreed with us that their petition was premature because they failed to obtain DOB-approved plans before they commenced the proceeding,” said attorney Brendan Derr, a Member with Rosenberg & Estis Litigation Department. “The ruling confirms our client’s right to deny access to their property without the proper approvals demonstrating the neighbor was ready and able to proceed with its construction work safely and expeditiously.”
Derr, along with Member Michael Pensabene, represented Beaux Arts II LLC, which owns the property at 307 East 44th St.
The dispute centers around a disagreement over the developers’ request for access to Beaux Arts II LLC’s property to, among other
things, install temporary protection while they are building a 47-story condominium on the neighboring 303-305 East 44th St. Commenced under Section 881 of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, these types of requests are typically made when a developer needs to enter an adjacent owner’s property temporarily to protect the property and its occupants during the developer’s construction project next door.
However, Derr and Pensabene challenged the petition, arguing that the scope of access demanded by the developers was overly broad, lacked critical details, and would unduly burden their property and its residents. The attorneys also cited critical errors the developers made when they initiated the special proceeding, including failing to provide adequate plans for safety, insurance or compensation for any inconvenience or damage.
Said Pensabene, “The Court agreed that the petition was legally and procedurally weak and ultimately dismissed the entire case—a rare outcome in these types of disputes, which are typically resolved through court-imposed access licenses. The decision is a strong reminder that access rights aren’t automatic and property owners should not be forced to accommodate vague or overly invasive construction requests without proper plans.”
The decision compels the developers to commence a new special proceeding for access or negotiate a license agreement with Beaux Arts II LLC.
It is the second action heard by the Court over the proposed high-rise at 303-305 East 44th St. In March,
Michael E. Pensabene Member
Brendan J. Derr Member
Beaux Arts II LLC sued to stop work on the site claiming the construction was damaging its building and harming residents. The building owners claimed foundation work was causing flooding and cracks in the walls of 307 East 44th St. and so much dust and debris that one resident had to move out.
Said Derr, “Our client’s concern is for the safety and wellbeing of the residents of their property and this RPAPL §
881 decision reinforces the importance of doing things the right way. Granting open access without Department of Buildings-approved plans or proper engineering review would have left our client vulnerable to unsafe and unregulated work. We simply asked that the petitioner slow down, follow the proper procedures, and respect our client’s rights—and the Court agreed.
Judge tosses condominium owner’s $10M lawsuit as unsupported by any facts
Rosenberg & Estis secures full dismissal of window defect claim against renowned New York developer Soloviev Group
Featuring Alex M. Estis and Norman Flitt
June 30, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, announced that the firm has secured a dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit brought by the owners of a condominium unit at 685 First Avenue alleging the floorto-ceiling windows in their apartment exposed them to harmful ultraviolet radiation.
Judge James d’Auguste of New York State Supreme Court dismissed the suit as meritless, ruling that the purchase contract the couple signed when they bought the luxury apartment overlooking Manhattan’s East River clearly stated that they were not relying on any “plans, brochures representations or statements” from the developer. What’s more, “This precludes claims relating to purported misrepresentations based upon the absence of UV protections on windows,” wrote Judge d’Auguste.
Rosenberg & Estis Members Norman Flitt and Alex M. Estis represented the property’s developer, Soloviev Group, along with owner Stefan Soloviev, CEO Michael Hershman and all defendants in the suit filed by husband and wife Jennifer Yen and Jeffrey P. Worley seeking $10 million in damages.
The Judge not only found the claims against the defendants to be meritless, he chided the plaintiffs for their efforts to recast their claims as torts and blame Soloviev and Hershman of negligence that caused them emotional distress. He wrote, “Plaintiffs have failed to articulate a potential non-conclusory basis for liability by the individual defendants.”
The judge also wrote that “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is legally insufficient because plaintiffs have failed to clearly allege
misconduct that is ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’”
Said Flitt, “This was an entirely meritless lawsuit brought for the apparent purpose of tarnishing our client’s reputation. Soloviev Group is a world-renowned developer known for delivering the highest quality projects across the United States. The Court rightly dismissed these claims with prejudice, recognizing that they were wholly without factual or legal basis.”
Yen and Worley caused a media splash last summer when they filed a 26-page complaint filled with multiple allegations against Soloviev, including that they deliberately misled the couple about UV protections in the striking 42-story black glass Murray Hill residential tower designed by Richard Meier & Partners Architects and developed by the Soloviev Group in 2019.
Yen wrote a blog post lamenting discoloration and fading of the carpets, artwork and furnishings in their $6.4 million home that they said were caused by UV radiation. She also claimed she found “suspicious lesions” on the side of her face that was most exposed to the glass wall window in her home office.
Said Estis, “The plaintiffs tried to get around the contract they had agreed to by filing negligence claims instead, but we are pleased the judge saw through this gambit. We appreciate the Court’s clear recognition that our clients did nothing wrong, and we are gratified that this baseless lawsuit has been fully rejected.”
Alex M. Estis Member
Norman Flitt Member
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. announces promotion of 12 attorneys
Brett B. Theis named Equity Member as firm showcases depth of legal talent
Featuring Brett B. Theis, Brendan J. Derr, Nicholas DiLorenzo, David A. Fries, Benjamin Z. Koblentz, Moshe B. Nachum, Elizabeth M. Owen, Justin S. Weitzman, Ariel S. Bresky, Zina S. Lyakhovetsky, Laura A. Raheb and Corey S. Rashkover
June 2, 2025: Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., currently celebrating its 50th year as one of New York City’s pre-eminent real estate law firms, has announced the promotion of 12 attorneys, highlighting the depth of its talent and reinforcing the company’s leadership in the industry.
“Over the past 50 years, Rosenberg & Estis has dramatically expanded its capabilities driven by a powerful team of professionals committed to delivering superior client service,” said Michael Lefkowitz, Managing Member of Rosenberg & Estis. “We are proud to announce these key promotions of attorneys who have distinguished themselves representing clients in a wide variety of complex matters.”
Member Brett B. Theis has been promoted to Equity Member. Theis has spent almost his entire career at Rosenberg & Estis, building a substantial practice at the firm by delivering business-oriented results and maintaining long term relationships with clients who consider him indispensable to their business operations. Theis is a seasoned commercial litigator and advisor, focusing his practice on the representation of New York property owners and developers in all facets of their real estate matters. Theis leads a specialized group of attorneys in R&E’s award-winning Litigation Department, where he brings a value-add mindset to his clients’ often unique and complex real property disputes.
Rosenberg & Estis also promoted the following attorneys from Counsel to Member: Brendan J. Derr: Derr joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2018 and is an experienced litigator whose practice includes representing clients in disputes related to real estate, construction, and complex commercial/business matters in both state and federal courts.
Nicholas DiLorenzo: DiLorenzo joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2020 and works within the firm’s Tax Incentives & Affordable Housing Department, focusing on real estate development with a specialization in tax incentives, affordable housing, and development bonuses.
David A. Fries: Fries joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2014, and his areas of practice include commercial real estate and financing transactions, mezzanine finance, joint ventures, and partnerships.
Benjamin Z. Koblentz: Koblentz joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2017 and works within the firm’s Litigation Department, advising clients and litigating complex commercial, governmental, constitutional and regulatory matters in
both state and federal courts. Koblentz regularly represents real estate developers, owners and landlords in litigation and pre-litigation settings and is a member of the Appellate Litigation Department.
Moshe B. Nachum: Nachum joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2020 and works within the firm’s Litigation Department, representing commercial and residential landlords and developers as well as management companies, brokers, and co-op/condo boards across a wide range of real estate matters.
Elizabeth M. Owen: Owen joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2018 and works within the firm’s Litigation Department, representing commercial and residential real estate owners and developers in complex litigation matters before civil, state, and federal Courts.
Justin S. Weitzman: Weitzman joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2020 and works within the firm’s Litigation Department, representing entities and individuals in complex real estate cases ranging from commercial litigation matters involving partnership, joint venture, limited liability company and shareholder disputes, including direct and derivative claims, as well real estate litigation representing developers, landlords and property owners in matters involving commercial and residential landlord-tenant disputes, guaranty enforcement, Yellowstone injunctions, breach of contract of sale, class action rent overcharge claims, partition, and condominium and co-op disputes.
Promoted from Associate to Counsel were:
Ariel S. Bresky: Bresky joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2023 and works within firm’s Litigation Department. His practice encompasses complex commercial litigation, with a strong emphasis on real estate-related disputes. In addition to his litigation work, Bresky serves as general counsel to clients and advises on a broad spectrum of transactional matters, offering strategic guidance across diverse arears of law.
Zina S. Lyakhovetsky: Lyakhovetsky joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2022 and works within the firm’s Transactions Department, representing owners, investors, developers, and lenders in all aspects of transactions involving the financing of commercial and residential real estate properties.
Laura A. Raheb: Raheb joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2021 and works within the firm’s Litigations Department, gaining experience in all aspects of commercial real estate litigation including contract disputes, transactional
disputes, construction litigation, landlord-tenant disputes, foreclosures, real estate partnership disputes, brokerage commission actions, holdover proceedings, ejectment proceedings, co-op/condo disputes and appeals.
Corey S. Rashkover: Rashkover joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2023 and works within the firm’s Transactions Department, representing developers, owners, and borrowers in a broad range of complex commercial real estate transactions such as acquisitions, dispositions, refinancings, and joint ventures.
Founded by Gary Rosenberg and the late Warren Estis in 1975, Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has grown from a two-man practice to the city’s leading full-service boutique real estate law firm offering services ranging from litigation transactions and regulatory and housing development incentive work. Today the firm has a total of 90 attorneys and has received countless recognitions, both for its successful litigation efforts and for advancing the interests of all industry members.
Brett B. Theis Member
Benjamin Z. Koblentz Member
Ariel S. Bresky Counsel
Brendan J. Derr Member
Moshe B. Nachum Member
Zina S. Lyakhovetsky Counsel
David A. Fries Member
Justin S. Weitzman Member
Corey S. Rashkover Counsel
Nicholas DiLorenzo Member
Elizabeth M. Owen Member
Laura A. Raheb Counsel
Launch of R&E’s new website
We are very excited to announce the launch of our new R&E website, which went live on July 28, 2025! This marks a significant milestone for our firm, reinforcing our leadership in real estate law and enhancing how we connect with clients, colleagues, and the broader public.
What’s New
• Modern Design: Clean, bold visuals aligned with our brand identity
• Streamlined Site-Wide Search & Filtering: Robust search functionality across all pages, plus filter options for Attorneys, Publications, Blogs, and Communications
• Device Optimization: Fully responsive across all devices for seamless browsing
• Enhanced Attorney Profiles: Updated bios, recognitions, and photography
• Improved Content Structure: Pages reorganized and consolidated for better accessibility, responsiveness, and to minimize redundancy
• Cross-Linking Capabilities: Integrated links across practice areas, published works, press releases, blogs, and more—directly connected to contributing attorney profiles
• New Homepage Feature: “Trusted by” section showcasing logos of clients who have provided testimonials (with permission)
• ADA Compliant: Meets the accessibility standards as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
These updates aim to deliver a more intuitive, informative, and engaging experience for all users.
RECENT EVENTS
As New York City’s premier real estate law firm, R&E attorneys were featured as expert speakers on in-person panels, podcasts, and webinars. The attorneys also actively participated in key industry events and engaged with our summer law clerks through a variety of firm-hosted activities.
09.13.2025 – 09.16.2025
IR Global Berlin Annual Conference: “Legacy in Motion”
R&E Members Eric S. Orenstein, Deborah E. Riegel and Richard L. Sussman (Photographed Left to Right) attended IR Global’s Annual Conference in Berlin. This year’s theme, “Legacy in Motion”, emphasized the importance of creating lasting impact amid a constantly evolving professional landscape. It was a remarkable opportunity to connect and reconnect with members from around the globe.
09.16.2025
Crain’s 2025 Best Places to Work in NYC
R&E is honored to be named one of Crain’s 2025 Best Places to Work in NYC — marking our third time on this prestigious list! This recognition reflects the dedication, talent, and hard work of our incredible team. Thank you to everyone who took part in the survey and continues to make R&E a great place to work.
09.16.2025
GirlGang’s Fall Fête
R&E Members Jolie E. Meer and Cori A. Rosen attended GirlGang’s Fall Fête—its fifth networking event of the year—held at 155 East 44th Street in New York. The evening featured cocktails, small bites, and powerful networking with the women leading the charge in real estate. Surrounded by such inspiring professionals, it was a truly energizing event.
09.11.2025
East Hampton Historical Society’s Golf Outing
R&E Members Michael E. Lefkowitz, Adam R. Sanders and Brett B. Theis (Photographed Left to Right) attended the East Hampton Historical Society’s Golf Outing at the Maidstone Club.
The East Hampton Historical Society is dedicated to preserving and sharing the rich history of East Hampton. It manages seven historic sites across East Hampton and Amagansett and fosters community engagement through a wide range of educational programs, exhibitions, lectures, performances, publications, tours, and special events.
09.10.2025
GreenPearl New York
Multifamily Summit 2025: Rent-Stabilized Units Private Roundtable
R&E Member Zachary J. Rothken chaired the panel discussion, “Rent-Stabilized Units Private Roundtable,” at GreenPearl’s 16th Annual New York Multifamily Summit on September 10. The conference explored critical topics across market-rate, rent-stabilized, and affordable rental housing, as well as the for-sale residential condo sector.
09.09.2025
Attorney Breakfast
R&E was proud to host a recent attorney breakfast featuring guest speaker Dave Lorenzo from Exit Success Lab. Member Theodore J. Metzger highlighted the firm’s capabilities in the Trusts & Estates department, while Legal Recruiting Manager Lina Vasco shared insights into our work environment and recruitment initiatives. We look forward to hosting more of these engaging events in the future!
Photographed above (Left to Right) are Dave Lorenzo, Lina Vasco and Ted Metzger.
09.04.2025
2025 New York Law Journal Legal Awards
R&E was honored to be recognized at the 2025 New York Law Journal Legal Awards. The firm’s Transactions Team was named a Finalist for the newly introduced “Real Estate Transaction of the Year” award, and Member Ethan R. Cohen was recognized as a Rising Star Honoree.
09.04.2025
NY, New York: The Elie and Sarah Hirschfeld Collection
R&E Members Adam R. Sanders and Justin Weitzman (Photographed Left to Right) visited The New York Historical for its current exhibition of New York, New York: The Elie and Sarah Hirschfeld Collection. From bustling harbors and Harlem diners to Village speakeasies, sleek skyscrapers, and gritty streetscapes, this exhibition captures New York in all its vibrancy.
Drawn from a transformative promised gift to the New-York Historical by prominent philanthropists and art collectors Elie and Sarah Hirschfeld—alongside new works from their private holdings—New York, New York presents more than 50 works of art that celebrate, question, and illuminate the city.
08.12.2025
Webinar: Repositioning NYC Multifamily Properties
R&E Members Lisa S. Lim and Daniel M. Bernstein presented a webinar on “Repositioning NYC Multifamily Properties Including Rent Regulated, Mixed Income and Affordable Properties: New Options to Consider.” This informative session covered key topics such as Rent Stabilization, Rent Control, Good Cause Eviction (GCE), the role of tax incentives in housing development, existing property tax programs (including 421-a, J-51, 420-c, and Article XI), the Affordable Housing Retention Act (AHRA), and proposed changes to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) under “One Beautiful Bill.”
08.06.2025
Bisnow New York Affordable Housing Conference
R&E Member Daniel M. Bernstein (Photographed Left) was honored to moderate a great panel discussion about 485-x, City of Yes zoning amendments and NYC residential development at Bisnow’s NY Affordable Housing Conference. Thank you to the excellent panelists NYS Senator Brian Kavanagh; Brian Loughlin, AIA APA of Magnusson Architecture and Planning PC; Christine O’Connell of Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC); AJ Pires of Alloy Development; and Derek Marcus of TF Cornerstone.
08.05.2025
Networking Event for America
Hotel Owners Charitable Association Inc.
R&E was proud to host a networking event earlier this week for the America Hotel Owners Charitable Association Inc. Led by R&E Member Lisa S. Lim, the event welcomed a strong turnout and featured insightful presentations on the firm’s capabilities by Members Daniel M. Bernstein, Adam R. Sanders, Benjamin M. Williams, and Counsel David J. Rosenberg.
We extend our sincere thanks to all who attended and contributed to the event’s success, and to Teddy Lai and AHOCA for their partnership and dedication.
07.31.2025
End of Summer Law Clerk Program: Farewell to Summers!
At our final Thursdays on Third of the month, the R&E legal team gathered to celebrate the conclusion of this year’s Summer Law Clerk Program. A heartfelt thank you to Sasha Bekirova, Carmen Florez, Selin Ferhangil, Nija Daniels, Andrew Greenberg, Serena Sergi, D’Shandi Coombs, and Chelsea Selman (Photographed Left to Right) for your hard work, enthusiasm, and dedication throughout the summer. We are incredibly grateful for the valuable contributions you made to the firm and are excited to watch your continued success as future leaders in the legal profession!
07.31.2025
CLE: The Art of Trying a Case: From Pre-Trial Conference through Summations
R&E Members Alex M. Estis and Norman Flitt (Photographed Left to Right) presented a CLE on “The Art of Trying a Case: From Pre-Trial Conference through Summations.” The session offered valuable insights into essential steps attorneys should take in the months leading up to a firm trial date, as well as practical strategies for navigating the crucial “crunch time” immediately before trial.
07.30.2025
Transactions Night Out: Honoring Dennis Hellman on his retirement
R&E Transactional Attorneys enjoyed a wonderful evening at a rooftop cocktail party at Aretsky’s Patroon in Manhattan. The event also honored the retirement of Dennis Hellman, who dedicated 32 years to the firm and played a key role in its success. Photographed above (Left to Right) are R&E Member Michael A. Pensabene, Dennis Hellman and Associate Meghan Paola.
07.23.2025
R&E’s Annual Ice Cream Social
This year’s Annual Ice Cream Social featured small-batch, scratch-made treats from Davey’s Ice Cream, a beloved New York City shop known for its high-quality ingredients and inventive flavors. Founded by former graphic designer David Yoo in 2013, Davey’s has become a local favorite, crafting each batch over a four- day process using milk and cream from Battenkill Creamery and other seasonal, local ingredients. Our team enjoyed a handpicked selection of Vegan Cookies & Cream, Peppermint, and Chocolate—a perfect mix of classic and creative to celebrate summer together.
07.22.2025
Summer Associate Event: Los Angeles Angels at New York Mets
R&E Attorneys and Summer Associates had a great time at Citi Field watching the Los Angeles Angels take on the New York Mets. With a Mets win to top it off, it was a perfect evening to connect and enjoy time together outside the office.
07.18.2025
CLE: Recent Cases in Co-ops, Condos, and Homeowners Associations That Every Real Estate Practitioner Needs to Know
R&E Counsel Matthew E. Eiben (Photographed above) presented a CLE on “Recent Cases in Co-ops, Condos, and Homeowners Associations That Every Real Estate Practitioner Needs to Know” at the New York State Bar Association. The session was well-attended and featured an engaging discussion of recent legal decisions that offer valuable guidance for attorneys navigating issues pertaining to residents and Boards in Community Associations throughout New York State. Eiben co-presented the program alongside Richard Shore of Nixon Peabody LLP and Marc Schneider of Schneider Buchel LLP.
07.17.2025
Litigation Group Night Out
R&E hosted an unforgettable Litigation Night Out at The Lawn Club, located in the heart of the Seaport at 1 Fulton Street. It was an incredible evening filled with friendly competition, laughter, and the kind of camaraderie that makes working together even more rewarding.
Photographed above (Left to Right) are R&E Member Brendan J. Derr, and Associates Miriam E. Avrutin and Andrew F. Oberg.
07.16.2025
Webinar: Decoding the “City of Yes”
R&E and EisnerAmper co-hosted a webinar on “Decoding the ‘City of Yes,’” presented by R&E Counsel David J. Rosenberg (Photographed Bottom), along with Michael Vermut, Partner at EisnerAmper (Photographed Top Left), and Patrick Madigan, Director of Investment Sales at Avison Young (Photographed Top Right). The webinar offered valuable and detailed insights into the “City of Yes” initiative, providing attendees with crucial legal and accounting guidance.
07.16.2025
Tenant Appreciation Day
Thank You, Durst Organization!
From all of us at R&E, thank you to The Durst Organization for the sweet surprise during today’s Tenant Appreciation Day at 733 Third Avenue! On this hot day in July, we beat the heat and cooled off with delicious frozen treats from popbar—and we’re still dreaming about all the flavorsdark chocolate, mango, vanilla and strawberry. (Tough choice, we know!)
We’re grateful to be part of a community that values its tenants and brings us together with thoughtful events like these. Photographed above (Left to RIght) are R&E Members Deborah E. Riegel and Jolie E. Meer, and Associate Meghan Paola.
07.10.2025
Summer Associate Event: Five Iron Golf
R&E attorneys and our summer associates stepped out of the office and into the simulators for a special evening at Five Iron Golf, Grand Central. Whether you’re navigating the back nine or sharing a few laughs over post-round drinks, golf offers a unique chance to build authentic connections that go well beyond the courtroom. At R&E, we value the importance of relationshipbuilding and mentorship, and this event gave us the opportunity to share that experience with our summer associates in a dynamic, tech-driven setting.
06.30.2025
30th ChaShaMa Gala
R&E was proud to attend the 30th ChaShaMa Gala honoring artists of New York, held at 205 E 42nd St. It was an unforgettable night filled with creativity, community, and inspiration, as more than 300 performers transformed the space into a vibrant, immersive celebration of the arts. Photographed above (Left to Right) are R&E Attorneys Jean Tom and Jolie Meer.
ChaShaMa is dedicated to fostering a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive world by collaborating with property owners to repurpose vacant real estate. These spaces are then made available to artists, small businesses, and for free, community-focused art programs.
06.25.2025
Counsel Promotional Dinner
R&E celebrated the firm’s newly promoted Counsels with a special dinner at Core in New York City. The evening was filled with pride, gratitude, and inspiration as we honored the individuals helping shape the future of our firm. Photographed above (Left to Right) are R&E Attorneys Adam Sanders, Michael Lefkowitz, Corey Rashkover, Laura Raheb, Ariel Bresky, David Horn and Bradley Silverbush. Congratulations to all on this meaningful accomplishment—we’re proud to recognize your contributions and excited for what’s ahead!
06.25.2025
Webinar: Substantial Rehabilitation: What You Need to Know
R&E Member Zachary Rothken presented a webinar on the history and key legal principles behind the “substantial rehabilitation” exemption from rent stabilization. It was an informative session with a strong attendance and provided participants with the essential tools and knowledge to navigate the intricacies of one of the few remaining paths to deregulate a building from permanent rent stabilization coverage.
06.18.2025
Jewish Lawyers Guild Happy Hour
R&E Members Luise A. Barrack and Moshe Nachum attended the Jewish Lawyers Guild’s lively Happy Hour on June 18, 2025. The evening provided a wonderful opportunity to connect with peers and colleagues in a fun, relaxed setting. Adding to the festive atmosphere was a vibrant circus theme, which brought an extra touch of excitement and creativity to the gathering. The event served as both a celebration of community and a chance to strengthen professional relationships.
06.17.2025
Member Promotional Dinner
R&E proudly celebrated the accomplishments of our newly promoted attorneys with a new member dinner at Core, New York City. With the NYC skyline as our backdrop, the evening was a meaningful opportunity to recognize the hard work, dedication, and achievements that continue to drive our firm forward. Congratulations to all on this exciting milestone!
Photographed above (Left to Right) are Moshe Nachum, Justin Weitzman, David Fries, Nicholas DiLorenzo, Eric S. Orenstein, Deborah E. Riegel, Gary M. Rosenberg, Richard L. Sussman, Luise A. Barrack, Elizabeth Owen, Michael A. Pensabene, Brendan J. Derr, Benjamin Koblentz, Dean P. Arfanis, and Michael E. Lefkowitz.
06.17.2025
UJA Real Estate Celebration Luncheon
R&E was privileged to attend the UJA Real Estate Celebration at Cipriani 42nd Street, Manhattan. This year, David Brause of Brause Realty and Michelle Bernstein of Miter Construction Corporation were honored for their professional and philanthropic leadership. Photographed above is Adam Rosenberg, longtime supporter of UJA, speaking on stage in his role as a current member of the UJA Real Estate Council Committee and former Chair of the REX Steering Committee.
06.12.2025
AAA Construction Conference
R&E Member Charles R. Pierce attended the 20th Annual AAA® Construction Conference at New York Law School. Top industry professionals and legal experts unite to explore the most critical challenges in construction arbitration and dispute resolution. This year’s theme, “Laying the Groundwork: A Structured Approach to Managing Construction Disputes,” offers practical tools and proven strategies to help navigate and manage disputes in the increasingly complex world of construction.
06.12.2025
Associate Night Out
R&E Associates and Summer Law Clerks had an amazing night out at T-Squared, with great conversation, light bites, refreshing drinks, and plenty of laughs! Photographed above (Left to Right) are Olivia Morri, Ainsley Gilman and Meghan Paola. Thank you Jennifer Arrizurieta, Jenna Corcoran and Evan Soyer for organizing such a fun night!
06.12.2025
YMCA of Greater New York: Heroes of New York Gala
R&E proudly attended the YMCA of Greater New York’s Heroes of New York Gala, held at the iconic Temple of Dendur in The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
This unforgettable evening celebrated people and organizations making a lasting impact on New York City communities. Funds raised from the gala directly support the YMCA’s vital programs, which serve people of all ages across all the five boroughs—providing everything from childcare and job training to senior support and wellness services. The night continued with an epic afterparty in the Met’s stunning Great Hall, with an unforgettable performance by the legendary Grandmaster Flash.
Thank you to the YMCA of Greater New York for your tireless work empowering and uplifting communities for more than 170 years.
06.11.2025
Raise a Glass to Freedom
R&E Member Michael A. Pensabene attended the Raise A Glass to Freedom event in support of the New England Innocence Project. The gathering was graciously hosted by Peter Lieb and Susan Block-Lieb at their home, with co-hosts Brian and Pascale Hainline, and Kathy and Jimmy Brandt.
The New England Innocence Project is dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals across New England, providing critical support to exonerees as they rebuild their lives, and working to reform the criminal legal system to prevent future miscarriages of justice.
06.11.2025
Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation Gala
R&E Member Gary M. Rosenberg attended the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation Gala at Chelsea Piers, Pier 60, Manhattan.
This special evening marked the 25th anniversary of the Auschwitz Jewish Center Foundation (AJCF) and celebrated 20 years of its American Service Academies Program (ASAP). The event honored AJCF’s enduring mission: to confront hatred through education, preserve the vibrant Jewish history of Oświęcim, and build bridges between communities to foster understanding and empathy.
AJCF is a leading anti-hatred organization committed to driving change through education in an increasingly divided world.
06.10.2025
JNF-USA’s
Leonard Litwin New York City Real Estate Tree of Life® Award Gala
R&E Member Deborah E. Riegel attended the Jewish National Fund-USA’s Leonard Litwin New York City Real Estate Tree of Life® Award Gala in Midtown East, Manhattan. The evening honored Simon J. Elkharrat, Partner at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, with the Tree of Life® Award, and Jay Miller, Managing Partner at BayBridge Real Estate Capital, with the Gregory A. Davis Leadership Award. Photographed above (Left to Right) is Debby with Glen Weiss of Vornado Realty Trust— a distinguished leades in the real estate community.
06.10.2025
R&E’s Annual Summer Golf Invitational & Dinner
R&E proudly hosted its ninth annual golf invitational with The Durst Organization at the beautiful Saint Andrew’s Golf Club in Westchester County. Though the weather threatened to dampen the festivities, we led with optimism—and the day turned out to be a tremendous success! We are deeply grateful to share this tradition with our valued colleagues and business partners at The Durst Organization.
Photographed above (L–R) are our 2025 our tournament winners): Stephen Millington, Brett Theis, Dan Mogolesko, & Alex Estis.
06.09.2025
NYWBA’s 90th Anniversary Annual Awards and Installation Dinner
R&E Member Luise A. Barrack attended the New York Women’s Bar Association’s 90th Anniversary Annual Awards and Installation Dinner at Three Sixty° in Tribeca. The event celebrated nine decades of advocacy and progress, honoring those who have advanced the mission to elevate and protect the rights of women. Among the evening’s honorees were U.S. Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, and Safe Horizon — each recognized with the President’s Special Award for their extraordinary commitment to justice and equality.
Photographed above (Left to Right) is Luise with Hon. Judith J. Gische, an inspiring leader and longtime supporter of the legal community.
06.04.2025
Ultimate City Scavenger Hunt
R&E’s first Ultimate City Scavenger Hunt was an unforgettable adventure filled with laughter, creativity, and some seriously unexpected talent! From dramatic performances to spontaneous parkour and barking battles, this event had it all.
06.04.2025
2025 Annual Health Fair
R&E Annual Health Fair was a tremendous success, and we’re thrilled to see such strong participation from across the firm. Congratulations to all our raffle prize winners — and a special thank you to the wellness providers and vendors who helped make the day informative, energizing, and fun.
At Rosenberg & Estis, we remain deeply committed to supporting the physical and mental well-being of all our employees. We believe that a healthy mind and a healthy body are essential to personal and professional fulfillment — and yesterday’s turnout reinforced that this belief is shared firmwide!
06.03.2025
CLE: Current Governance Issues in Cooperatives & Condominiums
R&E Counsel Brett M. Stack, photographed Top Left, presented a virtual CLE on “Current Governance Issues in Cooperatives & Condominiums” with the New York City Bar Association. He provided the audience with valuable insights on “Interplay between the various governing documents – Offering Plan (and its schedules) and Declaration/ByLaws/PL/House Rules.”
06.02.2025
2025 New 42 Gala
R&E Members Luise A. Barrack and Michael A. Pensabene attended the 2025 New 42 Gala at The Plaza Hotel on Monday, supporting New 42’s inspiring mission to bring world-class performing arts and education programs to children and families across NYC.
An unforgettable evening filled with performances, tributes, and community—plus a heartfelt paddle raise led by the inimitable Isaac Mizrahi to support arts accessibility and engagement. We’re proud to support an organization that brings magic and meaning to the next generation of theater lovers.
05.29.2025 J.P. Morgan Corporate Challenge
New York City
R&E lit up the streets at the J.P. Morgan Corporate Challenge— literally! Decked out in our bright yellowcolored race shirts, the “highlighters” were impossible to miss and full of energy from start to finish.
The run was a blast, and the fun continued at the after party at Rosie Dunn’s, where the good vibes (and laughs) kept flowing.
Congratulations to Sparshita Das and Rayan Salha for being our fastest 2025 female and male runners!
05.28.2025
2025 New York Metro Super Lawyers Reception
R&E Attorneys attended the 2025 New York Metro Super Lawyers Reception at the Bryant Park Grill. Photographed above (Left to Right) are Amanda Katz and Laura Raheb.
The Super Lawyers designation is a prestigious acknowledgment in the legal community, highlighting individuals who exemplify excellence in practice. The evening brought together top attorneys from across the New York metropolitan area to celebrate their contributions to the legal field.
05.28.2025
Brooklyn Law School Alumni Association ‘Last Wednesdays’
R&E was privileged to host Brooklyn Law School Alumni Association’s “Last Wednesdays” event this morning. As always, there was a great group of alums who had an opportunity to connect (and reconnect) and to reminisce about their time at the law school. A special thanks to Sean Devine and Erica Carter for their endless dedication and hard work on these events! Photographed above (Left to Right) are Michael A. Pensabene ‘00, Deborah Riegel ‘93, and Dean David Meyer.
05.28.2025
Welcome Summer Law Clerks!
R&E hosted a luncheon to welcome the 2025 Summer Law Clerks, with Managing Member Michael Lefkowitz giving opening remarks. The event offered an opportunity for the clerks to meet R&E Attorneys in a relaxed setting while enjoying panoramic views and engaging conversation. We’re excited to have this talented group join us for the summer and look forward to supporting their professional development through hands-on experience across our practice areas.
Photographed above (Left to Right) are the 2025 Summer Law Clerks Aleksandra Bekirova, Carmen Florez, Selin Ferhangil, Nija Daniels, Andrew Greenberg, Serena Sergi, D’Shandi Coombs and Chelsea Selman.
05.20.2025
NYCLA Annual Law Day 2025 Luncheon
R&E Member Deborah E. Riegel attended the 2025 NYCLA Annual Law Day Luncheon at The View at Battery Park. Hosted by the New York County Lawyers Association, the event celebrated legal community milestones.
R&E Members Daniel M. Bernstein, Lisa S. Lim, and Nick DiLorenzo attended the 26th Annual New York State Affordable Housing Conference at the New York Marriott Marquis.
As the largest affordable housing event in the nation, the conference featured over 65 industry exhibitors, 20 professional workshops, and a series of insightful panel discussions led by key experts in affordable housing. Attendees also participated in a banquet luncheon with a keynote address and a post-conference reception, providing ample opportunities for networking and professional development.
05.14.2025
BOMA New York Spring Soirée
R&E attorneys Adam R. Sanders, Cori A. Rosen, and AJ Virga (Photographed Left to Right) joined industry leaders at the BOMA New York Spring Soirée – Annual Rooftop Event at 230 Fifth Rooftop Bar. An incredible evening of cocktails, great food, and networking with some of the best in the business — all set against the stunning NYC skyline! Thank you, BOMA New York, for bringing together such an inspiring community of commercial real estate professionals.
05.14.2025
Annual Y Champions Celebration
R&E Members Bradley S. Silverbush and Luise A. Barrack (Photographed Left to Right) proudly attended the annual Y Champions Celebration at the FiDi Banking Hall—an inspiring evening of gratitude, storytelling, and community spirit. Attendees joined together to celebrate the unwavering generosity of the Y’s donors and honor the incredible dedication of the Volunteers of the Year from all 24 branches across NYC. From heartfelt stories to joyful dancing, the night showcased the YMCA’s profound and lasting impact on New York City communities.
05.14.2025
CLE: Use and Occupancy
R&E Member Alex M. Estis presented an in-house CLE on “Use and Occupancy.” He educated attendees on the what U&O laws are, the process and procedures in place and the penalties associated with its violations.
05.08.2025
T
he
Lycée Français de New York 2025 Gala
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. was proud to support and attend the 90th Anniversary Gala of Le Lycée Français de New York, held on May 8, 2025, at The Glasshouse in New York City.
The Gala, themed Notre Héritage, Notre Avenir: Celebrating the Past, Shaping the Future, brought together the Lycée’s international community to honor nearly a century of excellence in bilingual education, cultural exchange, and global citizenship.
R&E Member and Head of the Tax Incentives & Affordable Housing Department, Daniel M. Bernstein (Photographed Center), represented the firm at this inspiring event.
05.08.2025
T hursdays on Third (For All!)
R&E reopened its terrace to host its first Thursdays on Third of the year! Attorneys and staff gathered together for a memorable evening filled with lively conversations, delicious Mexican cuisine in the beautiful spring weather.
05.08.2025 CPR Training
R&E was thrilled to welcome back Ellen Erickson, RN BSN, for an essential CPR and defibrillator training session!
We would like to send a huge thank you to Ellen and to everyone who attended, taking the time to sharpen their lifesaving skills. You make our workplace safer!
05.07.2025
Tenement Museum 2025 Gala
R&E Members Deborah E. Riegel and Cori A. Rosen attended the Tenement Museum’s annual gala, “City of Im/ migrants: Holding Up the Torch,” held in celebration of the rich cultural diversity that defines New York City. The evening honored notable leaders including Andrew Berkman, recipient of the Founder’s Award for his longstanding support and leadership; Dr. Elizabeth Alexander, who received the inaugural Gina Manuel Award for her work as a poet and advocate for social justice; and Muzaffar Chishti, honored with a special Holding Up the Torch award for his expertise in immigration policy.
The gala celebrated over a decade of immigrant stories and underscored the Tenement Museum’s mission to preserve and share the histories of immigrants, migrants, and refugees— work that R&E proudly supports.
05.06.2025
Asian American Judges Association of New York (AAJANY) 2025 Gala
In celebration of Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, the Asian American Judges Association of New York (AAJANY) hosted its annual Gala at HK Hall in Midtown Manhattan. This vibrant evening brought together leaders from across New York’s legal community to honor distinguished individuals whose commitment to justice, equity, and inclusion has left a lasting mark on the state’s judicial system.
The event was attended by a distinguished roster of judges, attorneys, and community leaders, including R&E attorneys. Photographed above (Left to Right) are Rayan Salha, Michael Fortugno, Cori A. Rosen, Amanda L. Katz and Benjamin Z. Koblentz.
05.06.2025
CLE: Current Issues in Affordable Housing in New York City
The Housing & Urban Development committee led by Julia Solo and Farhana Chowdhury and our CLE subcommittee put on a wonderful and well attended affordable housing CLE program at the New York City Bar Association on May 6, 2025, with 3 panels focusing on: (1) City of Yes (COY) Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) zoning amendments + 485-x tax incentive; (2) Good Cause Eviction; and (3) Supportive Housing Development. Congratulations to all moderators and panelists to a job well done (including photographed above [Left to Right] architect David West, R&E Member Daniel Bernstein, R&E Counsel David Rosenberg, developer Marlee Busching and HPD Assistant Commissioner Tricia Dietz).
04.30.2025
CLE: Environmental Due Diligence and the NYC Cleanup Programs
R&E Member Lisa S. Lim, along with James P. Cinelli, Principal Consultant at Liberty Environmental, Inc. presented an in-house CLE on “Environmental Due Diligence and the NYC Cleanup Programs.” It was an informative session on identifying potential environmental liabilities, evaluating associated risks, and verifying regulatory compliance prior to a property transaction or redevelopment.
04.30.2025
R&E Spring Breakfast
The R&E Annual Spring Breakfast brought together our attorneys and staff for a warm and cheerful start to the day on the 12th floor terrace. With perfect spring weather at 68 degrees, the atmosphere was just right for great food and even better company. A highlight of the morning was R&E’s very own John J. Franco, who manned the popular waffle station, serving up hot and fresh plain or chocolate chip waffles. Toppings included fresh-cut strawberries and whipped cream, giving everyone the chance to build their perfect breakfast treat. We are incredibly fortunate to be part of a firm that values and celebrates its people.
04.25.2025
KALAGNY’s 39th Anniversary Gala
R&E Associate Jay H. Min attended the Korean American Lawyers Association of Greater New York’s (KALAGNY) 39th Anniversary Gala Dinner at Gotham Hall in New York City. It was a beautiful evening honoring John S. Kim, EVP, CLO, CAO & Corporate Secretary at Cognizant; Jin Hee Kim, partner at Gibson Dunn; Tanya A. Bovée, principal at Jackson Lewis; Lillian Kim, M&A partner at Pillsbury; and Thomas Lee, M&A/private equity partner at Fried Frank. Photographed above is Jay in a modernized hanbok.
Jay H. Min is an active member and Gala Logistics Subcommittee Co-Chair of KALAGNY, which is a professional membership organization of attorneys, legal professionals, law students and more engaged with the issues affecting the Korean-American and legal communities in the greater New York region.
04.23.2025
Barnard Annual Gala 2025Celebrating Leadership
R&E Member Nicholas Kamillatos and his wife Dr. Sharon Kratochvil (Photographed Left to Right) attended the Barnard College Annual Gala, held at Cipriani 42nd Street in New York City. The event celebrated leadership and honored Cheryl Glicker Milstein ’82, P’14, Chair of the Barnard College Board of Trustees. Milstein, who was elected chair in 2018 after eight years as vice chair, was recognized for her enduring commitment and visionary leadership at Barnard College. The evening brought together distinguished alumni, donors, and community leaders in celebration of Barnard’s mission and future.
04.17.2025
An Evening with Judge Shah Ally: Supporting His Campaign for New York State Supreme Court
R&E was proud to welcome Judge Shah Ally for a meaningful discussion about his campaign for the New York State Supreme Court. It was a valuable opportunity to learn about his vision for justice, his extensive experience on the bench, and the values that guide his work. Photographed above (Left to Right) are R&E Managing Member Michael E. Lefkowitz, Member Deborah E. Riegel and Judge Shah Ally.
