Managing Partners: Adam Leitman Bailey
Number of partners: 8
Number of lawyers: 24
By uniting many of the best real estate attorneys of our generation, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has become one of New York’s most prominent real estate law firms. The firm excels by solely practicing real estate law and only taking on projects and cases where it is among the best in the field. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has achieved ground-breaking results in the courtroom, in the board room, at the closing table, in the lobbies of legislative bodies, and in every other venue where talented legal advocacy is key to its clients’ interests.
As one of New York’s premier real estate litigation firms, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has participated and prevailed in many of the most important New York real estate cases of the new millennium, as reflected in numerous published and unpublished decisions on novel legal issues. The firm’s attorneys have won over a thousand cases in the courts of New York state, including State Supreme, Housing, Civil and Federal courts in addition to over 250 appellate court cases, many at New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Some of these notable victories have changed the landscape of New York law. The firm is called upon for most of the biggest and many of the most difficult cases, involving litigating New York real estate.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. practices one type of law in one state. It never appears in any case where it is not familiar with the judges and their past decisions and proclivities. The firm has hired the best real estate attorneys in their field and they only practice law in that specialization of that type of real estate law. More than one judge has praised Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. for being the best he has ever seen in the courtroom. The firm has invented new ways to practice law and new theories to solve its clients’ problems. Its successes have resulted in producing new laws and new precedents, creating new leases to become the industry standards, devising new faster, less expensive procedures to obtain foreclosures and evictions, using ‘Perry Mason’ moments to win trials, creating out-of-the-box ways to collect on judgments, and creating new theories of law to obtain justice for clients.
Main Areas of Practice:
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has become one of New York’s most prominent real estate law firms. By solely practicing real estate law and only taking on projects and cases where the firm believes the firm is among the very best in the field, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. has achieved the highest quality results in the courtroom, in the board room, at the closing table, in the lobbies of legislative bodies, and in every other venue where talented legal advocacy is key to its clients’ interests. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. counts itself among only one of two law firms with under 30 attorneys to achieve an AV MartindaleHubbell rating, repeated Super Lawyers ranking, selection into the Bar Registry of Preeminent Lawyers, and a 2008 Chambers and Partners award for being one of the “Leading Lawyers for Real Estate.”
■ Lorne v. 50 Madison Avenue LLC, making new law, the Appellate Division finds that condo board not liable for repairing newly constructed building and finds that obligation to repair remains with sponsor; Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. victorious at trial level and appeal
■ Hartman v. Goldman, an adverse possession case of first impression before New York’s Appellate Division
■ 542 East 14th Street v. Lee, a case of first impression before New York’s Appellate Division defining expansion of rent regulation law for non-primary residence cases
■ Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act Cases, turned a forgotten federal statute into a way to void the contracts of sales for buildings over 100 units resulting in hundreds of settlement and court victories. A prominent magazine noted Adam Leitman Bailey as the real estate attorney, ‘credited with being the first lawyer in New York City to use the ILSA provision.’ Another prominent magazine noted that Adam Leitman Bailey pioneered the use of the ILSA provision to get buyers out of contracts in the wake of the financial crisis
■ Trump Soho Association v. Bayrock/Sapir Organization LLC, Donald J Trump, Trump International Hotels Management LLC, Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump, where Adam Leitman Bailey prevailed in a settlement providing millions of dollars to clients based on fraud claims under the Federal Securities Law
■ Sky View Parc Purchasers Association, et al. v. FTC Residential Company II, L P, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. lands largest condominium settlement in New York history
■ Rivas v. McDonnell, a noteworthy Appellate Division decision involving an interpretation of the recording statute
■ Chin v. Chan, where Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. prevails at trial using a novel legal theory invalidating contract to purchase commercial property
■ Save Harlem Association v. KIMCO Realty Corporation, where Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. used victory in court, proposing legislation, conducting rallies and mobilizing political support and media attention to obtain winning settlement for the Save Harlem Association
■ Stalker v. Stewart Tenants, where Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. achieves winning settlement on behalf of coop sellers in landmark housing discrimination case;
■ Sykes v. RFD Third Avenue One Associates, where Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. breaks new legal ground with appellate victory for attorneys’ fees on a stipulation
■ Million Gold Realty Co. v. S.E. & K. Corp., where Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. prevails at trial and on appeal in complicated commercial lease litigation setting the law for when dual right of first refusals given to two commercial tenants in building;
■ Crave Crane Accident Case, where Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. obtains winning settlement for restaurant struck by crane on March 15th, 2008
■ B & C Realty, Co. v. 129 Emmut LLC, 106 A.D.3d 653 (1st Dept. 2013) Successfully defended owner of a building with potential zoning violations against purchaser who failed to close and lost a two million dollar down payment with finding that purchaser failed to demonstrate reasonable reliance necessary to sustain claims of fraudulent inducement, fraud and promissory estoppel