“Troubling Discrepancies”: NY AG Letitia James – Who Went After Trump For Real-Estate – May Have Fudged Her Own Building Permits

Authored by Sam Antar via White Collar Fraud,

New York Attorney General Letitia James has made a name for herself prosecuting landlords and real estate fraudsters. Yet our investigation reveals troubling discrepancies in her own property filings—irregularities that would likely result in stiff penalties for most New Yorkers.

Documents from the NYC Department of Buildings show a pattern of inconsistencies about a Brooklyn property James owns—inconsistencies that mysteriously received special treatment when reported.

The Discrepancy: Official Records vs. James’ Filings

Note: Links to NYC Department of Buildings records may load slowly due to system capacity limitations. Please be patient as they connect to the city’s database.

At the heart of the issue is a contradiction between what the city officially permits and what James’ filings claim.

The Certificate of Occupancy for 296 Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn—issued January 26, 2001—clearly states the property is a five-family dwelling regulated under NYC housing laws. James purchased this property on February 14, 2001, just two weeks after this Certificate of Occupancy was issued. This official classification has been on the books for more than two decades.

Yet James repeatedly filed permit applications identifying the same property as a four-family dwelling—a classification subject to different regulatory requirements under New York City building codes. Under NYC building code classifications, her property with five units would be classified as C2 (which applies to buildings with 5+ units), while her filings list it as C3 (which applies to 3-4 unit buildings). This fundamental contradiction between the long-established Certificate of Occupancy and her permit applications raises serious questions about regulatory compliance.

Multiple Discrepant Filings Show Pattern, Not Mistake

This wasn’t a one-time error. We uncovered multiple DOB permit applications containing 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.

This discrepancy goes far beyond a simple administrative error. As noted in my previous post, mortgage documents signed by Letitia James repeatedly characterize the property as a four-unit building—a critical representation that directly contradicts the official Certificate of Occupancy, which clearly designates the structure as a five-family dwelling. This inconsistency carries significant legal and financial implications, potentially allowing James to secure more favorable lending terms or avoid stricter regulatory requirements that apply to larger multi-unit properties.

The applications to the Department of Buildings were submitted through the city’s professional certification program, under which the architect affirmed:

“I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXERCISED A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE IN CERTIFYING THAT THE FILED APPLICATION IS COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS… I FURTHER REALIZE THAT ANY MISREPRESENTATION OR FALSIFICATION OF FACTS MADE KNOWINGLY OR NEGLIGENTLY BY ME, MY AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, OR BY OTHERS WITH MY KNOWLEDGE, WILL RENDER ME LIABLE FOR LEGAL AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION…”

This sworn certification underscores the seriousness of the discrepancy. It was not merely a clerical oversight, but a representation made within a process where legal and professional accountability is explicitly defined—yet seemingly unenforced in this case.

Why It Matters: Critical Regulatory Differences

The implications of this discrepancy go far beyond paperwork—it affects compliance with safety and occupancy laws that vary based on unit count. According to the NYC Administrative Code, buildings with different unit counts face materially different regulatory requirements, particularly in safety standards. The NYC Building Code mandates different fire protection protocols based on dwelling unit count, affecting everything from required safety systems to inspection frequency.

The difference between a four-unit and five-unit building is particularly significant, as five units triggers additional regulatory oversight. By listing a five-unit building as having only four units, these applications potentially circumvented proper regulatory review—an action that, if done knowingly, may constitute a violation of state and city law.

The Case of the Missing Unit

This pattern raises a disturbing question: What happened to the fifth unit? If the Certificate of Occupancy legally certifies five units since 2001 but James’ filings consistently reference only four, we face a straightforward logical conclusion: either the property currently has five units and the filings contain false information, or the property has four units and an unauthorized conversion has occurred. In the latter case, for ordinary property owners, such unauthorized alterations trigger immediate investigations, stop-work orders, and significant penalties. The NYC Department of Buildings routinely issues violations for exactly this type of undocumented change to a building’s legal occupancy configuration.

Legal Framework: False Statements in Building Documents

These discrepancies potentially implicate several New York laws:

• NYC Administrative Code §28-211.1: This section explicitly prohibits “false statements in certificates, forms, written statements, applications, reports or certificates of correction” related to building permits and compliance documents.
• NY Penal Law §175.30: This statute defines the offense of “Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree” as “knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, [when one] offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.” This offense is classified as a Class A misdemeanor.
• NY Penal Law §175.35: This elevates the offense to a Class E felony when done “with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state.”

Building code compliance is not discretionary. The NYC Administrative Code §28-202.1 establishes a framework for enforcement through both civil and criminal penalties for violations, stating “violations of this code, the 1968 building code, the zoning resolution or other laws or rules enforced by the department shall be punishable by civil penalties.”

A Double Standard in Action: DOB’s Puzzling Response

Perhaps most revealing is how the city’s Department of Buildings responded when the discrepancy was brought to its attention.

The most troubling aspect emerged when a complaint was filed about this discrepancy. The DOB’s response was surprisingly dismissive:

“MINOR ERROR, C/O 3P0010437 LIST 5 FAMILY BLDG.”

The original complaint was quite specific, 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.”

Yet instead of typical enforcement action, the agency simply labeled it a “minor error”—not even disputing the factual claim, just minimizing its significance despite the discrepancy persisting for nearly two decades.

One Rule for James, Another for Everyone Else

This lenient treatment stands in stark contrast to how the DOB typically handles similar inconsistencies. Consider this example:

In a case argued by housing attorney Jesse Gribben, 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.” The courts supported tenants who organized a rent strike over the violation.

Under the NYC Administrative Code §28-213.1, “in addition to any penalties otherwise authorized by law pursuant to article 202 and the rules of the department, whenever any work for which a permit is required pursuant to this code has been performed without a permit, a penalty shall be imposed by the department.” For ordinary property owners, such violations can result in significant fines and mandatory remediation requirements.

Questions That Deserve Answers

Our investigation raises several troubling questions:

• Why were James’ applications approved despite containing information that contradicts the Certificate of Occupancy that has been in place since 2001?
• Why did DOB dismiss as “minor” what would typically trigger enforcement actions for ordinary property owners?
• Is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent differential treatment?
• Given the building is legally certified for five units for over 20 years but consistently described as having only four, has an unauthorized unit conversion occurred without proper permits or inspections? This would constitute a serious violation that typically results in immediate enforcement action for non-public officials.

As the state’s chief legal officer, James has a duty to explain these irregularities. If regulatory enforcement varies based on power or position, the public is owed not just answers—but accountability.

We’ll continue monitoring this situation. Stay tuned for updates.