Attorney General Letitia James built her career prosecuting fraud—but our investigation reveals a two-decade discrepancy in her own property records that suggests she may have committed it herself. Since acquiring her Brooklyn property in 2001, James has entered into multiple mortgages and modifications consistently describing it as a 4-unit building, despite official records classifying it as a 5-unit dwelling. No matter which explanation she might offer for the mysteriously “missing” fifth unit, each scenario implicates her in serious impropriety. If her property truly has five units as officially recorded, she appears to have committed mortgage fraud. If it has four units as her filings claim, she’s maintained an unauthorized conversion for two decades. And if she claims it’s all a simple clerical error, she must explain why this identical “error” has persisted across multiple legal filings for 20 years while receiving special treatment from regulatory authorities that ordinary New Yorkers never enjoy.
Five Units or Four? The Question That Won’t Go Away
Our investigation has uncovered a critical contradiction in Attorney General Letitia James’ Brooklyn property records that stretches back more than two decades. The property at 296 Lafayette Avenue has a Certificate of Occupancy issued January 26, 2001, that clearly designates it as a five-family dwelling. James purchased this property just two weeks later, on February 14, 2001.
Yet for the past two decades, James has consistently represented this same property as having only four units in both:
- Mortgage documents and applications, including a 2011 Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) agreement with handwritten modifications
- Building permit applications filed with the NYC Department of Buildings in 2020, which explicitly state “Dwelling Units: Existing: 4”
This isn’t a one-time error. Multiple DOB permit applications contain identical discrepancies:
- July 2020 Application (Job #340743146): Documents show “Dwelling Units: Existing: 4” despite the Certificate of Occupancy listing five units for the past 19 years.
- September 2020 Application (Job #340768510): Another filing repeats the same inconsistent information.
The permit application details are explicit, stating: “Total Number of Dwelling Units at Location: 4” for a property documented in the Certificate of Occupancy as a five-unit building since 2001.
A Timeline of Persistent Discrepancy
The contradiction between official records and James’ filings spans more than two decades:
No Matter How You Look at It: Troubling Implications
The discrepancy creates an unavoidable dilemma with serious implications under every possible scenario—a perfect legal trap with no harmless explanation:
If the property genuinely has five units (as per the official Certificate of Occupancy):
- James submitted false information on mortgage applications, potentially constituting federal mortgage fraud
- She filed incorrect information on building permits, violating NYC Administrative Code §28-211.1, which prohibits “false statements in certificates, forms, written statements, applications, reports or certificates of correction”
- She received a federal HAMP mortgage modification she wasn’t eligible for, as the program guidelines explicitly limited eligibility to properties with no more than four units
- Under NYC building code classifications, her property should be classified as C2 (which applies to buildings with 5+ units), while her filings incorrectly list it as C3 (which applies to 3-4 unit buildings)—each with different regulatory requirements
If the property actually has four units (as her documents consistently claim):
- An unauthorized conversion occurred without proper permits, which according to NYC Department of Buildings, constitutes an illegal conversion that “can create danger” and is subject to significant penalties
- The property has a serious title defect, as the official Certificate of Occupancy doesn’t match the actual property condition
- This title defect potentially voids insurance coverage and creates legal complications for any future sale or refinancing
- It raises questions about why no enforcement action was taken for this unauthorized conversion
- Property owners with illegal conversions can face mandatory penalties as high as $25,000 for each violation, with additional requirements including having all residents move out during remediation
- Such violations typically require extensive corrective action, including hiring professionals to file plans, secure Department approval, pay filing fees, obtain permits, have licensed contractors perform work, and ultimately secure a new Certificate of Occupancy
If it’s simply a “minor error” as the DOB claimed:
- It doesn’t explain why the same “error” appears consistently across multiple document types for nearly two decades
- It fails to account for handwritten mortgage modifications that appear designed to create deliberate ambiguity
- It doesn’t explain why enforcement standards that apply to ordinary New Yorkers weren’t applied in this case
The Smoking Gun: Suspicious Handwritten Modifications
Note: While Joel Gilbert of Gateway Pundit first raised initial questions about James’ mortgage arrangements in a March 18 article, our independent investigation has uncovered significant new evidence and documentation that substantially expands the scope and seriousness of these allegations.
On a mortgage document buried deep in New York City’s property records, someone scrawled words that could now haunt Attorney General Letitia James: “…not more than 6 residential units…” The seemingly innocuous modification potentially allowed James to circumvent federal lending rules that explicitly limited eligibility to properties with no more than four units.
But that’s just one of several handwritten modifications. In the corner of the same document, another notation reads “4 fam”—directly contradicting the property’s official classification as a five-family dwelling in its Certificate of Occupancy. These conflicting modifications, alongside a mortgage instrument that incorrectly describes the property as a “4 family” dwelling, suggest a pattern of misrepresentation rather than isolated mistakes.
The HAMP modification agreement from 2011 contains troubling handwritten notations that suggest deliberate manipulation rather than honest mistakes:
- One corner contains “4 fam” handwritten on the document
- Another part has a handwritten clause stating the property contains “in the aggregate not more than 6 residential units“
- Additional notations reference document identifiers that mysteriously don’t appear in public records databases
- Notes suggesting retroactive alterations: “By assignment dated 8/23/11 – to be recorded simultaneously herewith” – This notation indicates the mortgage was being assigned or modified at the same time the document was being filed—potentially as part of a retroactive correction to address questions about the property’s classification, suggesting documents may have been backdated or altered after the fact to create a paper trail that didn’t exist at the time of the original transaction
These contradictory modifications on the same document are particularly troubling because the HAMP program explicitly limited eligibility to properties with no more than four units. By representing her five-unit property (according to the Certificate of Occupancy) as having only four units, James potentially secured tens of thousands of dollars in payment reductions she wasn’t entitled to receive.
The handwritten modifications raise several critical questions:
- Why would one handwritten note specify “4 fam” while another extends the limit to six units?
- Why do both contradict the property’s official classification as a five-unit dwelling?
- Was this an attempt to create deliberate ambiguity about the property’s status?
- The handwritten phrase “to be improved by” suggests the property might have fewer units at application time, while allowing for more units later—a potential loophole to circumvent program requirements
Selective Enforcement: Why James Gets a Pass
When confronted with these discrepancies, the Department of Buildings’ response reveals a troubling double standard in enforcement.
For ordinary New Yorkers, such discrepancies trigger immediate and severe consequences:
- Immediate stop-work orders under NYC Administrative Code §28-213.1
- Substantial financial penalties outlined in NYC Administrative Code §28-202.1
- Expensive remediation requirements
- In some cases, forced vacancy until compliance is achieved
- According to the Department of Buildings, illegal conversion violations are taken extremely seriously because they “put people at risk” and “in the event of a fire or other emergency can pose serious risks to tenants, neighbors and first responders”
In one documented case, when tenants discovered their building contained more units than listed on its Certificate of Occupancy, the DOB required “the presence of 24/7 fire guards as a condition of continued occupancy,” and courts supported tenants who organized a rent strike over the violation.
Yet when a complaint was filed specifically about James’ property discrepancy, the DOB dismissively labeled it as a “MINOR ERROR”—despite the complaint explicitly stating:
“THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN BUILDNG PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – APPLICATIONS LIST THE BUILDING AS A 4 FAMILY BUT C OF O INDICATES A 5 FAMILY DWELLING. PERMIT APPLICATIONS SIGNED BY LETITIA JAMES APPEAR TO CONTAIN FALSE INFORMATION.”
This lenient treatment stands in stark contrast to how the DOB typically handles similar inconsistencies for ordinary citizens and raises serious questions about selective enforcement of building codes based on power and position.
Questions That Demand Answers
As our investigation continues, several critical questions remain:
- Why were James’ applications approved despite containing information that contradicts the Certificate of Occupancy in place since 2001?
- Who authorized the handwritten modifications on mortgage documents, and why do they contain contradictory statements about unit count?
- Why did DOB dismiss as “minor” what would typically trigger enforcement actions for ordinary property owners?
- Given her position as New York’s chief legal officer, shouldn’t James be held to the highest standards of compliance with the very laws she enforces?
This isn’t just a bureaucratic inconsistency—it’s a window into a system of double standards. As James famously said when securing a $355 million judgment against Donald Trump, “No one is above the law.” These records raise a stark question: Does that include her?
Written by: Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.
This investigation continues our ongoing series examining New York Attorney General Letitia James’ financial disclosures and property transactions.