On May 13, 2025—just two days ago—the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) closed complaint #3A07302, which alleged that New York Attorney General Letitia James’ brownstone at 296 Lafayette Avenue violated its Certificate of Occupancy. This latest inspection confirms what our investigation has documented all along: the property is legally classified as a five-family dwelling—directly contradicting James’ repeated claims of it being a four-unit building on mortgage applications and permit filings spanning two decades.
The timing is particularly significant. Last month, U.S. Federal Housing Director William Pulte issued a formal criminal referral to the Department of Justice regarding these exact misrepresentations, noting that James appears to have “falsified records in order to meet certain lending requirements and receive favorable loan terms.” The referral explicitly cited potential violations of federal wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, and false statements statutes.
Now the DOB’s own records validate these concerns through its resolution statement:
“NO VIOLATION WARRANTED FOR COMPLAINT AT TIME OF INSPECTION. CO #B3P0010437 ON FILE FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING.”
That Certificate of Occupancy—CO #B3P0010437—was issued on January 26, 2001 and explicitly classifies the property as a five-family dwelling. While the inspector claimed to observe no “occupancy contrary,” the department’s own language confirms that the legal unit count is five—not four as James has repeatedly claimed in mortgage filings, permit applications, and sworn disclosures.
The Physical Evidence: Six Meters, Five Doorbells, Zero Excuses
Our investigation reveals more than just paperwork contradictions. As detailed in our April 21 investigation, 296 Lafayette Avenue has six Con Edison electric meters installed—one for common areas and five specifically for individual residential units:
- Basement Unit
- First Floor Unit
- Second Floor Unit
- Third Floor Rear Unit
- Third Floor Front Unit
This physical infrastructure—along with the building’s five doorbells—directly contradicts any claim of a four-unit configuration. Even if all units weren’t actively occupied during the inspector’s visit, the building’s layout and utility connections confirm exactly what the Certificate of Occupancy states: this is a five-family dwelling, not four.
Such concrete evidence demolishes any defense based on “clerical errors” or “misunderstandings.” The physical structure itself tells the truth that James’ mortgage applications have consistently misrepresented.
Twenty Years of Consistent Misrepresentations
The pattern of misrepresentation spans James’ entire ownership of the property. According to the criminal referral document, the timing isn’t coincidental. Director Pulte specifically noted that “conforming loans, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-backed mortgages, have favorable rates and terms” but are “subject to a cap of four dwellings per property.” Buildings with five or more units “must be treated as a multifamily property, and typically [have] larger down payment requirements and higher interest rates”—often “between 0.75-1 percent higher.”
The misrepresentation also carries significant insurance implications. Five-unit properties require commercial insurance policies with substantially higher premiums than residential policies for four-unit buildings. By representing the property as having fewer units, James may have secured residential insurance coverage at lower rates while avoiding the more expensive commercial policies legally required for five-unit buildings—potentially constituting insurance fraud on top of mortgage misrepresentations.
Our investigation has documented James signing multiple DOB permit applications—as recently as 2020—falsely claiming the building had “4 dwelling units.” These filings, made under penalty of perjury, directly contradict the official Certificate of Occupancy.
Similarly, James has represented the building as having four or fewer units on every mortgage since 2001—sometimes even describing it as a “1–2 family residence.” Her 2021 mortgage with Citizens Bank (see ACRIS filing) explicitly states “1 or 2 family residence”—a stunning misrepresentation of a building legally classified as a five-family dwelling.
HAMP Fraud: Federal Assistance Through Misrepresentation
Perhaps most concerning is James’ 2011 application for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)—a federal program created to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. The criminal referral specifically notes that HAMP “recipients had to have properties with four dwellings or less” to qualify.
By misrepresenting her five-unit building as a four-unit property, James appears to have secured federal mortgage assistance she was legally ineligible to receive. This raises serious questions about potential fraud against a federal program designed to help those truly in need.
The complete mortgage timeline reveals not just consistency in misrepresentation, but a strategic pattern that maximized financial advantages:
- June 21, 2021: Citizens Bank – “1 or 2 Family Residence”
- August 23, 2019: Citibank – “4 Family”
- October 26, 2017: Wells Fargo – “4 Family”
- January 26, 2015: Municipal Credit Union – “4 Family”
- August 23, 2011: US Bank – “4 Fam.” (handwritten)
- May 25, 2007: American General – “1–2 Family Residence”
- October 26, 2006: American General – “1–3 Family”
- July 1, 2005: MERS – “4 Family”
- August 29, 2003: MERS – “4 Family Dwelling”
- March 30, 2001: Chase – “One or Two Family”
Attorney’s Defense Collapses Under Evidence
In an April 24, 2025 letter to Attorney General Bondi, Letitia James’ attorney Abbe Lowell attempted to dismiss these misrepresentations as mere clerical mistakes. Lowell claimed the Brooklyn property “has always functioned as a four-person residence” and cited Department of Finance tax records listing it as “C3 – Four Families.”
This defense ignores a basic legal principle: administrative classifications don’t override the legally binding Certificate of Occupancy. More critically, Lowell’s explanation can’t account for the physical evidence—six electric meters and five doorbells—or explain why James consistently misrepresented the property on mortgage applications spanning two decades.
Lowell described how James’ mother initially occupied the first floor, James the second floor, a family friend the third floor, and her brother the fourth floor. But this arrangement is legally irrelevant. Under New York City building codes, dwelling units are defined by separate cooking facilities, entrances, and utility connections—not by who happens to occupy them. The physical infrastructure of separate meters and doorbells confirms the building’s five-unit configuration.
Most damaging to Lowell’s defense is his own admission that the property has been “functioning” differently than its Certificate of Occupancy since 2001. This isn’t a defense at all—it’s an inadvertent confession to either mortgage misrepresentations or an unpermitted conversion that has persisted for over two decades.
Double Standards: A “Minor Error” For the AG, Violations for Everyone Else
Perhaps most revealing is how authorities have treated these violations. When a complaint was filed about the discrepancy between James’ property’s five-unit Certificate of Occupancy and her four-unit permit applications, building authorities dismissed it as a “MINOR ERROR”—a striking contrast to how such violations are treated for ordinary New Yorkers.
Typical homeowners with similar discrepancies face stop-work orders, hefty fines, or even tenant displacement until compliance is achieved. For James—the state’s chief law enforcement officer—these same violations have been repeatedly overlooked, revealing a troubling double standard in regulatory enforcement.
Lowell’s “mistake” excuse also fails on a legal level. Under NYC Administrative Code § 28-211.1, knowingly submitting false DOB forms is a violation. Under federal lending statutes cited in the criminal referral, misrepresenting property characteristics to obtain better mortgage terms can constitute wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, and false statements to financial institutions. These are not paperwork errors—they are potentially criminal filings with substantial financial benefits.
Legal Bind: No Innocent Explanation Remains
The DOB’s confirmation of the five-unit Certificate of Occupancy places James in an impossible legal position. If the property truly has five units as legally classified, then her mortgage applications contain false statements—potentially constituting federal mortgage fraud. If the building actually has only four units, then it was unlawfully altered without approval—violating NYC building codes for over two decades.
Even James’ own attorney has now confirmed that the property has been “functioning” differently than its Certificate of Occupancy since 2001—an admission that suggests knowledge of the discrepancy rather than an innocent mistake. This creates an even more precarious legal position as both the DOB inspection and the Federal Housing criminal referral advance.
Conclusion: A Pattern of Deception Now Confirmed
The May 13, 2025 DOB resolution doesn’t clear Letitia James—it confirms what our investigation has documented: her Brooklyn brownstone is legally classified as a five-family dwelling, contradicting years of mortgage applications claiming four or fewer units. The evidence spans from official documents to physical infrastructure, creating a consistent pattern of misrepresentation with significant financial benefits.
As Federal Housing Director Pulte’s criminal referral makes clear, these aren’t isolated incidents or innocent mistakes. They represent a “pattern of falsified records in order to meet certain lending requirements and receive favorable loan terms” that potentially violate multiple federal criminal statutes.
The most troubling aspect isn’t just the misrepresentations themselves, but that they’ve been allowed to continue for so long. When ordinary citizens make similar misstatements on mortgage applications, they face serious consequences. The question now is whether New York’s Attorney General will be held to the same standard she enforces on others.
Written by,
Sam Antar
© 2025 Sam Antar. All rights reserved.
For full documentation, utility evidence, and permit history, visit: The Fifth Unit and AG Letitia James’ Building Permits Raise Serious Questions.