Letitia James’ Lawyer Doesn’t Understand the Property He’s Defending

Attorney’s Building Blunder

In a high-stakes response to a federal criminal referral, Letitia James’ defense lawyer, Abbe David Lowell, submitted a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi that made a stunning error: he fundamentally misunderstood the very property at the center of the investigation. The letter, prompted by the FHFA’s referral for potential mortgage fraud, falsely claimed James’ Brooklyn property “has always functioned as a four-person residence.” But official records, utility infrastructure, and tenant complaints paint a very different—and legally significant—picture.

The Lawyer’s Fundamental Error

In his letter to the US Attorney General, James’ lawyer made these specific claims about 296 Lafayette Avenue:

“In 2001, Ms. James purchased her Brooklyn, New York home with her savings to facilitate supporting her mother (sick at the time) and give other family members a place to live. Ms. James and her family members have lived there since 2001. The co-occupancy dwelling has four floors and, for as long as Ms. James has lived there, the property has always functioned as a four-person residence. Initially, Ms. James’ mother lived on the first floor; Ms. James occupied the second floor; a close family friend occupied the third floor; and her brother occupied the fourth floor. The basement did not have any unit. After Ms. James’ mother died, and to this day, Ms. James has occupied the first and second floor units for herself, while her close family friend and brother occupy units on the top two floors.”

This description reveals a lawyer completely unfamiliar with:

• The building’s legal classification
• The physical layout of the property
• The actual utility services present
• The documented complaint history

Most strikingly, the Certificate of Occupancy shows no fourth floor exists—yet the lawyer claims James’ brother lives there. That alone should have disqualified the letter.

Working From the Wrong Floor Plan

The lawyer appears to be operating from a completely misaligned floor numbering system — a critical error that fundamentally affects how we understand the entire property and the tenant complaints:

This misalignment is critical because tenant complaints from “Unit 1” and “Unit 2B” correspond to spaces the lawyer claims were exclusively occupied by James and her mother—not by unrelated tenants. When we correctly align the floors, we see that these complaints directly contradict the lawyer’s claims about who lived where.

This isn’t just an embarrassing error in a routine real estate transaction, but in a letter to the U.S. Attorney General defending New York’s chief legal officer. The attorney isn’t just mistaken—he’s describing a building that doesn’t exist.

The Certificate of Occupancy: What the Building Actually Is

The City of New York issued a Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for this property on January 26, 2001—just two weeks before James purchased it. Under NYC Administrative Code §28-118.3.2, no building may be legally occupied in a manner inconsistent with this document.

This isn’t a suggestion or guideline—it’s the controlling legal document that establishes how the property may be lawfully used. The C/O explicitly classifies the building as a five-family dwelling with specific details showing two separate units on the third floor and no fourth floor at all.

Con Edison Records: The Physical Reality the Lawyer Missed

The on-the-ground utility infrastructure flatly contradicts the lawyer’s claims. Con Edison records show six separate electrical services:

These meters provide undeniable physical evidence that:

• There is a separate metered unit in the basement (which “did not have any unit” according to the lawyer)
• There are two separate units on the third floor (which the lawyer claims is occupied by a single “close family friend”)
• The Con Edison designations align perfectly with the Certificate of Occupancy classification

Each meter represents a separate account with billing information. For the lawyer’s “four-person residence” claim to be accurate, we would have to believe that multiple electric meters exist for no reason whatsoever.

Tenant Complaints vs. Lawyer’s Claims: The Impossible Timeline

Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) records show tenant complaints from Units 1 and 2B that directly contradict the lawyer’s timeline and occupancy claims:

The lawyer specifically claims: “After Ms. James’ mother died, and to this day, Ms. James has occupied the first and second floor units for herself.” Yet the existence of tenant complaints from these very units proves this statement cannot be accurate.

This contradiction is particularly significant because it reveals not just confusion about floor numbering, but about the actual occupancy history of the building. If tenants were filing complaints about units the lawyer claims were occupied by James herself, then his entire characterization of the property is fundamentally flawed.

The Lawyer’s Claims Collapse Under Scrutiny

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about a lawyer’s embarrassing error. These discrepancies have serious legal implications:

1. Mortgage Eligibility: Five-unit buildings are classified as commercial properties under federal lending guidelines (C2 classification for 5+ units vs C3 for 3-4 units), subject to stricter underwriting standards, higher down payments, and less favorable terms
2. HAMP Program Violation: The Home Affordable Modification Program James used in 2011 explicitly excluded properties with more than four units
3. Building Code Compliance: Operating a building inconsistently with its Certificate of Occupancy violates NYC Building Code
4. Unauthorized Subdivision: If the HPD complaints from “Unit 2B” indicate subdivision not reflected in the C/O, this would constitute another building code violation

The Bottom Line: More Than Just Embarrassing Errors

For an attorney representing New York’s chief law enforcement officer to be so fundamentally confused about the property at the center of the case raises profound questions that go beyond mere incompetence and into potential legal exposure:

The evidence points to only two possible conclusions:

1. Either the lawyer failed to perform even the most basic due diligence about the property before making representations to federal officials—an extraordinary lapse for an attorney defending the state’s top legal officer, or
2. The lawyer knew these facts and chose to misrepresent them anyway—raising even more serious questions about the integrity of James’ legal defense.

Neither scenario inspires confidence. When your lawyer doesn’t even understand the building he’s defending—down to basic facts like how many floors exist and who actually lives there—it suggests a defense built on fiction rather than fact.

Most critically, the tenant complaints from units the lawyer claims were occupied by James herself offer irrefutable evidence that his entire narrative about the building’s use is factually impossible. No amount of legal maneuvering can reconcile HPD’s documented tenant visits with the lawyer’s claim that James and her family were the sole occupants.

If this is the best defense New York’s top law enforcement officer can produce, it begs the question: how deep does the cover-up go?

More records are coming. Stay tuned.

Written by,

Sam Antar

© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.