In a decisive development that fundamentally alters the mortgage fraud allegations against New York Attorney General Letitia James, our continuing investigation has uncovered official NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) records that validate Certificate of Occupancy #3P0010437 designating her Brooklyn brownstone as a five-unit building. This April 2025 DOB disposition, formally declaring the five-unit certificate ‘VALID’ and ‘ON FILE,’ directly contradicts two decades of James’ mortgage applications, loan documents, and permit filings that consistently claimed the property contains only four units.
This isn’t merely another allegation — it’s official government confirmation that demolishes James’ primary defense. Just days ago, her spokesperson told the Times Union the property was “a (four)-unit, owner-occupied building” and claimed the five-unit Certificate of Occupancy “was filed by the previous owner.” The New York Daily News editorial board similarly dismissed concerns by asserting the Certificate of Occupancy “was an error filed by a previous owner.”
But now, the DOB’s own response to complaint #3A10177 filed on April 16, 2025, explicitly validates Certificate of Occupancy #3P0010437 — confirming the property is legally a five-family dwelling. This is no longer a matter of competing claims but of verified facts that directly contradict James’ financial filings spanning two decades.
Even if the property physically contains only four units, representing it as such on mortgage documents directly contradicts the legal Certificate of Occupancy — creating a fundamental misrepresentation on loan applications.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) officially referred James to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation on April 14, 2025. Just two days later, while James was publicly dismissing these allegations as “baseless” in media interviews, the DOB validation of the five-unit Certificate of Occupancy created a damning paper trail that directly contradicts her central defense.
This remarkable timing—official confirmation of the five-unit designation coming immediately after a federal criminal referral— demolishes the defense James was simultaneously offering to the press.
The Complaint That Changed Everything
The DOB complaint (#3A10177) filed on April 16, 2025, specifically alleged “CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – NONE/ILLEGAL/CONTRARY TO CO” and “CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY : ILLEGAL CHANGE IN USE” at 296 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn. The complaint directly questioned the discrepancy between James’ building permit applications claiming four units and the property’s Certificate of Occupancy showing five units.
What makes the resolution so significant is how it was dismissed. Rather than finding no merit to the allegation, DOB inspectors marked it “COMPLAINT UNSUBSTANTIATED BASED ON DEPARTMENT RECORDS” with the clarifying comment: “VALID CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 3P0010437 ISSUED ON 1/26/2001 ON FILE.”
In effect, the DOB confirmed the central fact behind the complaint – that Certificate of Occupancy #3P0010437 exists and remains valid – while declining to take enforcement action. This official acknowledgment of the certificate’s validity essentially confirmed the property is legally classified as a five-unit dwelling.
Why Four vs. Five Units Matters
Under federal guidelines, five or more residential units triggers “commercial property” classification, with significant financial implications:
- Higher costs: Commercial mortgages require larger down payments (25-30% vs. 15-20%), higher interest rates (0.5-1.5% more), and shorter terms
- Stricter requirements: Commercial loans demand more rigorous financial documentation and higher debt service coverage ratios
Most significantly, in 2011, James received a Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) loan with “4 fam” handwritten in the margin. HAMP explicitly excluded buildings with more than four units from eligibility – meaning the difference between four and five units determined whether James qualified for this federal assistance program at all.
By consistently representing her building as having four units rather than five, James potentially secured tens of thousands of dollars in financial benefits across multiple mortgages over two decades. The Certificate of Occupancy’s clear five-unit designation raises serious questions about how these discrepancies persisted through numerous transactions without verification against official records.
Pattern Spans Multiple Filings – Complete Mortgage Timeline
This wasn’t an isolated incident. A comprehensive review of mortgage documents reveals not just consistency in misrepresentation, but a strategic evolution that maximized financial advantages over time:
- June 21, 2021: Citizens Bank NA – “Dwelling Only – 1 or 2 Family Residence or Dwelling”
- August 23, 2019: Citibank NA – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
- October 26, 2017: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
- January 26, 2015: The Municipal Credit Union – “Dwelling Only – 4 Family”
- August 23, 2011: US Bank NA, as Trustee – “4 Fam.” (handwritten)
- May 25, 2007: American General Home Equity, Inc. – “Property Improved by a 1–2 Family Residence or Dwelling”
- October 26, 2006: American General Home Equity, Inc. – “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 Bank – “Premises Improved by One or Two Family”
The pattern doesn’t just repeat—it evolves, adapting to maximize financial gain with each lender. Each mortgage application, spanning ten different transactions over 20 years, contradicts the official Certificate of Occupancy. All links above connect to official NYC property records that anyone can verify independently.
No Way Out: The Legal Implications
The DOB’s confirmation of the Certificate of Occupancy creates a serious legal predicament for the Attorney General.
If the building legally has five units as the Certificate of Occupancy states, then submitting mortgage documents claiming four units could constitute violations of federal banking and wire fraud statutes. Alternatively, if it actually has four units, that would mean an unauthorized conversion occurred, violating city building codes.
Either scenario potentially involves legal violations, with the federal charges carrying the more serious penalties.
DOB Resolution Undermines James’ Defense
In response to the allegations, a spokesperson for James told the Times Union:
“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.”
Similarly, the New York Daily News editorial board defended James, stating:
“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.”
But these defenses fall 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.
And the DOB’s April 16 resolution doesn’t support these defenses either. By confirming “VALID CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 3P0010437 ISSUED ON 1/26/2001 ON FILE,” city inspectors effectively validated the official five-unit designation while declining to take enforcement action. This creates an impossible contradiction:
- If James admits the Certificate of Occupancy is correct (five units), she would be acknowledging two decades of incorrect mortgage filings
- If she maintains her property has four units, she would be claiming the Certificate of Occupancy – just confirmed as valid by DOB – is wrong
- If she claims the unit count changed at some point, she would need to produce building permits and an amended Certificate of Occupancy – neither of which exist in public records
By resolving the complaint through confirmation of the existing Certificate of Occupancy rather than finding “no violation,” the DOB created a paper trail that potentially strengthens the federal case while providing no support for James’ purported defense.
The Critical Legal Distinction
It’s important to emphasize that even if the property physically has only four units, representing it as having four units on mortgage documents still creates a legal problem because it contradicts the Certificate of Occupancy. The legal status of a property is determined by its Certificate of Occupancy, not by the physical reality.
Mortgage applications require accurate representation of a property’s legal status. By submitting documents that contradict the official Certificate of Occupancy, James potentially misrepresented the property’s legal classification to lenders—regardless of how many units physically exist.
This creates exposure under federal laws that prohibit false statements on mortgage applications. The issue isn’t about the actual number of units—it’s about whether the mortgage documents accurately reflected the property’s legal classification as recorded in official city records.
The Paper Trail: A Timeline of Contradiction
The chronology of events tells its own story:
- January 26, 2001: NYC issues Certificate of Occupancy #3P0010437 confirming five units
- February 14, 2001: James purchases the property
- 2001-2023: Multiple mortgage documents and permits list four units
- April 14, 2025: FHFA refers James to DOJ for investigation
- April 16, 2025: DOB complaint #3A10177 is filed
- April 16, 2025: DOB confirms Certificate of Occupancy for five units is valid
The Walls Are Closing In
The irony is impossible to ignore. James rose to national prominence by aggressively prosecuting financial misrepresentations, securing a $355 million judgment against former President Donald Trump for allegedly inflating asset values to obtain better loan terms.
Now she faces scrutiny for potentially similar conduct – with the city’s own records contradicting her two-decade paper trail of property classifications, confirmed by the DOB just hours after a reported federal criminal referral.
The Attorney General has built her career on the principle that no one is above the law. The public has held others accountable for far less. It’s time the law applies to Letitia James the way it does to everyone else.
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.
Documents referenced in this investigation are available for public review through the NYC Department of Buildings and property records databases.