EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION
For over two decades, New York Attorney General Letitia James has told mortgage lenders, city officials, and the public that her Brooklyn brownstone contains four residential units. But the electrical meters tell a different story—and it’s one that could have serious legal consequences.
In law enforcement, they say physical evidence trumps paperwork every time. And in this case, the physical evidence is undeniable.
The Physical Evidence: Six Electric Meters Don’t Lie
Utility service records show six separate electric service designations at 296 Lafayette Avenue, James’ Brooklyn brownstone. These aren’t anonymous account numbers, but clearly labeled service points corresponding to specific units:
- Third Floor Rear Unit
- Common Area Service
- Basement Unit
- First Floor Unit
- Second Floor Unit
- Third Floor Front Unit
Even accounting for one service covering common areas, this configuration confirms the existence of five distinct residential units.
This physical infrastructure matches exactly what official city records have said since January 26, 2001—when the building’s Certificate of Occupancy was issued, formally classifying the property as a “five-family dwelling.”
But that’s not what any of her mortgage documents say.
The Paper Trail: A Shifting Story That Never Matches Reality
Our investigation uncovered a stunning pattern spanning James’ entire ownership period. In mortgage after mortgage, year after year, the property is consistently misrepresented—sometimes as a “four-family” dwelling, other times as a “one or two family” residence. But never once as the five-unit building it legally is:
- June 21, 2021: Citizens Bank – “Dwelling Only – 1 or 2 Family Residence”
- August 23, 2019: Citibank – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
- October 26, 2017: Wells Fargo – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
- January 26, 2015: Municipal Credit Union – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
- August 23, 2011: US Bank (HAMP) – “4 Fam.” (handwritten)
- May 25, 2007: American General – “Property Improved by a 1–2 Family Residence”
- October 26, 2006: American General – “Improved by 1–3 Family Dwelling”
- July 1, 2005: MERS – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
- August 29, 2003: MERS – “Premises Improved by 4 Family Dwelling”
- March 30, 2001: Chase Manhattan – “Premises Improved by One or Two Family”
In 2020, James doubled down on the misrepresentation, filing two separate NYC Department of Buildings permit applications that both claimed “Dwelling Units: Existing: 4.”
What makes this pattern especially troubling is that the unit count inexplicably oscillates between “1-2 family,” “1-3 family,” and “4 family” across different documents—yet never acknowledges the official five-unit status. This suggests not clerical oversight but deliberate misrepresentation.
The Financial Advantage: Why a Fifth Unit Changes Everything
This discrepancy isn’t just a paperwork error—it has significant financial and legal implications.
Under federal lending rules, a building with five or more units is classified as a commercial property, subject to:
- Higher interest rates (typically 0.5-0.75% higher than residential loans)
- Larger down payment requirements (often 25-30% vs. 15-20% for residential)
- More stringent debt service coverage ratio requirements
- Completely different underwriting standards
- Ineligibility for residential mortgage relief programs like the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)
Most critically, the 2011 HAMP mortgage modification—with its telltale handwritten “4 fam” notation—provided federally subsidized relief that was explicitly unavailable for five-unit buildings. By representing her property as having four units rather than five, James potentially secured tens of thousands of dollars in mortgage relief she was not eligible to receive.
The Public Defense: Shifting the Blame
When confronted with questions about these discrepancies, James’s representatives have attempted to shift blame to the previous owner. The Times Union reported:
“The attorney general has been clear in her financial filings that this is a (four)-unit, owner-occupied building. The previous certificate of occupancy from January 2001 that lists it as a (five)-unit building was filed by the previous owner before the attorney general owned the home.”
But this defense falls apart under scrutiny. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued on January 26, 2001—just weeks before James purchased the property on February 14, 2001. It remains legally binding today and has never been amended or superseded.
More importantly, if James believed the Certificate of Occupancy was incorrect, she had a legal obligation to file an Alt-1 application to formally change the unit count—something she has never done in 24 years of ownership.
The New York Daily News editorial board similarly claimed:
“Regarding a house that James owns in Brooklyn, an incorrect certificate of occupancy held by the city Department of Buildings says it is a five-family structure, but that was an error filed by a previous owner. There are only four units and the James mortgage reflects that. No mortgage fraud there.”
Yet this explanation contradicts the physical reality of the separately metered electric services that confirm the building’s five-unit configuration. It also ignores the legal process required to reclassify a building’s occupancy status.
The Double Standard: Prosecutor or Perpetrator?
The irony is impossible to miss. As New York’s top law enforcement official, Letitia James has built her reputation prosecuting others for financial misrepresentations—most notably securing a $355 million judgment against Donald Trump for allegedly inflating property values on financial statements.
Now the evidence suggests she may have committed similar misrepresentations—claiming her five-unit building was a four-unit or even “one or two family” dwelling to secure more favorable financing terms and regulatory treatment.
When ordinary New Yorkers misrepresent their buildings’ legal occupancy status, they face serious consequences:
- Stop-work orders
- Substantial financial penalties
- Mandated remediation with 24/7 fire guard requirements
- In some cases, forced vacancy until compliance is achieved
Yet when a complaint was filed about the discrepancy between James’ permit applications and her Certificate of Occupancy, the Department of Buildings dismissed it as a “MINOR ERROR“—a level of leniency rarely afforded to ordinary property owners.
The Federal Question: FHFA’s Criminal Referral to DOJ
The most serious implications now involve formal action by federal authorities. On April 14, 2025, William J. Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), formally referred Letitia James to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation related to mortgage fraud.
In his official letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director Pulte stated that the FHFA has “identified matters that are appropriate for referral to the U.S. Department of Justice for consideration of criminal prosecution.” The referral specifically cites:
- James’ declaration of a Virginia property as her “principal residence” in 2023 while serving as New York’s Attorney General
- The consistent misrepresentation of her Brooklyn property as having four units rather than five “in both building permit applications and numerous mortgage documents”
- Evidence suggesting James “appears to have falsified records in order to meet certain lending requirements and receive favorable loan terms”
The FHFA referral notes that the alleged misconduct could violate multiple federal statutes, including wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344), and making false statements to a financial institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014).
The 2011 HAMP issue is particularly significant in this context. The handwritten “4 fam” notation on the modification paperwork raises substantial questions about potential federal mortgage fraud, as HAMP was explicitly limited to properties with four or fewer units, making James’ five-unit building categorically ineligible.
The FHFA, as the regulator of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, “takes very seriously allegations of mortgage fraud or other criminal activity” that might “jeopardize the safety and soundness of FHFA’s regulated entities and the security and stability of the U.S. mortgage market,” according to the referral letter.
The Inescapable Conclusion
Utility meters don’t lie. Legal documents don’t expire without formal action. And in this case, both point to the same conclusion: 296 Lafayette Avenue is—and has been since before James purchased it—a five-family dwelling.
Every mortgage document, permit application, and public statement claiming otherwise appears to misrepresent this fundamental fact—a pattern that has persisted for over two decades and potentially provided significant financial advantages.
For New York’s chief law enforcement officer—whose signature enforcement actions have targeted others for similar financial misrepresentations—these findings demand thorough investigation and explanation.
As James herself said when announcing her fraud case against Trump: “No one is above the law.”
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.
The Case Against NY Attorney General Letitia James to Date
All documents cited in this investigation are publicly available through New York City’s ACRIS system and Department of Buildings records, unless otherwise noted. Each link provides direct access to the original source material.