How Real Estate Attorneys Protect You During Closing

Closing on a property is exciting, but it’s also a legal maze. From reviewing contracts to resolving disputes, real estate attorneys play a crucial role in ensuring the entire process goes smoothly and securely. Whether it’s a first-time home purchase or a multi-million-dollar commercial investment, the legal guidance they provide can make all the difference.

What Happens When a real estate attorneys protects a Real Estate Closing?

A real estate closing is the final step in transferring property ownership from seller to buyer. This is when contracts are finalized, funds are exchanged, and legal documents are signed. On the surface, it might seem like a simple paperwork exercise. But beneath the surface, closing is packed with legal, financial, and procedural complexities that can turn risky fast, unless someone is there to protect your interests.

Why You Need a Real Estate Attorney at Closing

A real estate attorney serves as a legal safeguard during this crucial phase. Their job isn’t just to read documents; it’s to detect hidden issues, ensure regulatory compliance, and protect their client from liabilities that may be lurking in the fine print.

For example, they review the purchase agreement to ensure all terms align with the buyer’s or seller’s expectations. They also examine the title report to identify liens, unpaid taxes, or ownership disputes. In short, a real estate lawyer works to catch problems before they become costly legal battles.

Residential Real Estate Attorneys: Keeping Homebuyers Safe

Buying a home can be overwhelming, especially for first-timers. That’s where a residential real estate attorney becomes invaluable. They walk clients through disclosures, ensure the financing terms are clear, and confirm that no clauses in the closing paperwork could lead to future legal trouble.

They also coordinate with title companies, lenders, and agents to make sure everything stays on schedule. This kind of support reduces delays, protects against fraud, and minimizes post-closing headaches.

Homebuyer consulting with a real estate attorney about closing documents and legal protections during a property purchase – The Law Firm of Dayrel Sewell.

Source: dicksonlegal

Commercial Real Estate Attorneys: Managing Bigger Risks

A commercial real estate lawyer handles much more complex transactions. These can involve zoning laws, environmental compliance, lease agreements, or large development projects. In commercial deals, the stakes are higher, and so are the potential liabilities.

Whether negotiating a commercial lease or reviewing investor agreements, these attorneys provide a buffer between clients and any costly missteps. Their experience ensures that legal documents are not only compliant but also tailored to meet the goals of investors or business owners.

Real Estate Attorneys: When Disputes Arise

Sometimes, even with careful planning, things can go wrong. Title defects, undisclosed structural issues, or breaches of contract can erupt into full-scale disputes. This is where a real estate litigation lawyer steps in.

They specialize in representing clients in court or arbitration when disputes arise during or after closing. From boundary disagreements to title conflicts, litigation attorneys are the go-to professionals for protecting rights when amicable solutions aren’t possible.

Real estate attorney reviewing documents related to property litigation and closing disputes; image for illustrative purposes only – The Law Firm of Dayrel Sewell.

Source: bannonlawgroup

The Role of a Real Estate Law Firm

A real estate law firm often combines all of these specialties under one roof, including residential, commercial, litigation, and more. Working with a firm instead of an individual allows clients access to multiple legal experts who understand the nuances of each transaction type. They typically assign different attorneys to handle various parts of a transaction, such as due diligence, document drafting, and legal compliance. This team-based approach can result in smoother closings and stronger protection.

How Real Estate Attorneys Prevent Problems Before They Happen

A real estate attorney is more than a legal technician; they’re also a risk manager. Before closing day, they often:

Ensure all taxes and fees are accounted for
Double-check the accuracy of deeds and mortgage documents
Resolve any last-minute title issues
Clarify contract language that might cause legal confusion
Coordinate with escrow and title companies to finalize paperwork

By preemptively catching these issues, attorneys can save clients time, money, and unnecessary stress.

Protecting Buyers and Sellers Equally

Contrary to popular belief, real estate attorneys aren’t just for buyers. Sellers also benefit from legal counsel, especially when dealing with contingencies, warranties, or delayed closings.

For instance, an attorney can help sellers understand their responsibilities under the contract and defend them against unfair demands post-closing. Whether on the buying or selling side, legal protection ensures that rights are respected and deals close without regret.

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC: Trusted Expertise at the Closing Table

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is widely recognized for its deep experience in both transactional and litigation aspects of real estate law. Led by Dayrel S. Sewell, Esq., M.P.H., the firm offers strategic guidance in residential closings, commercial property deals, title reviews, and real estate disputes.

Attorney Sewell brings over 18 years of legal experience and a reputation for protecting clients through detail-oriented contract analysis, dispute resolution, and risk prevention during closing. Whether it’s a first-time homebuyer or a complex commercial transaction, the firm ensures clients are legally secure and fully informed every step of the way.

Conclusion

Hiring a real estate attorney during closing isn’t just about compliance; it’s about confidence. When large amounts of money, complex legal documents, and life-changing decisions are involved, professional guidance is essential. Whether it’s a residential real estate attorney helping a family move into their dream home or a commercial real estate lawyer managing the acquisition of a multi-unit property, the value they provide is undeniable. And if a dispute does arise, a real estate litigation lawyer can step in to protect your interests through legal action. Choosing a reputable real estate law firm, like the LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC, ensures every legal angle is covered, from start to signature.

The Impact of Real Estate Laws on Business Growth in New York City

New York City’s real estate landscape is as dynamic as the city itself—constantly evolving, fiercely competitive, and shaped by a complex web of regulations. For business owners, investors, brokers, and legal professionals, understanding how these laws influence commercial operations isn’t just helpful—it’s essential for long-term success.

From zoning restrictions that dictate where businesses can operate to lease regulations that impact operational costs, NYC’s real estate laws create both opportunities and challenges. This article explores the multifaceted relationship between real estate regulations and business growth, offering insights into compliance, strategic advantages, and when to seek expert legal counsel.

Real Estate Laws and Urbanization: Shaping NYC’s Business Landscape

New York City’s real estate laws don’t just govern individual properties—they actively shape the city’s urbanization trends, influencing where businesses thrive and how neighborhoods evolve. As one of the world’s most densely populated urban hubs, NYC’s regulatory framework plays a pivotal role in balancing growth, affordability, and infrastructure demands. Here’s how:

1. Zoning Laws and Commercial Density

NYC’s zoning resolutions (like the 2016 Zoning for Quality and Affordability reforms) directly impact where businesses can cluster. For example:

High-density corridors (e.g., Midtown Manhattan) attract corporate HQs due to permissive zoning, while industrial business zones (IBZs) preserve manufacturing spaces in areas like Brooklyn Navy Yard.

Mixed-use zoning in neighborhoods like Long Island City encourages live-work-play developments, fostering startup ecosystems.

Business implication: Companies must align location strategies with zoning maps or risk being locked out of prime areas.

2. Affordable Housing Mandates and Commercial Trade-offs

Policies like Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) require developers to include affordable units in new projects. While aimed at housing, these laws indirectly affect businesses by:

Reducing developable commercial space in mixed-use buildings.

Increasing construction costs may be passed on to commercial tenants via higher rents.

Case in point: Brooklyn’s rezoning under the De Blasio administration prioritized affordable housing, squeezing out some small businesses in rapidly gentrifying areas.

3. Infrastructure and Transit-Oriented Development

Urbanization thrives on accessibility. NYC’s real estate laws incentivize development near transit hubs (e.g., Hudson Yards, Downtown Brooklyn), leveraging:

Tax incentives for projects near subway lines.

Easier permitting for buildings with pedestrian-friendly ground-floor retail.

Business upside: Retailers and service providers benefit from foot traffic, while offices gain commuter accessibility.

4. Sustainability Laws and Urban Growth

Recent laws like Local Law 97 (carbon emissions caps for buildings) push urbanization toward green development. Businesses face:

Retrofitting costs for older properties.

Competitive advantages for eco-conscious brands in LEED-certified spaces.

The big picture: NYC’s urbanization isn’t organic—it’s steered by laws that reward or penalize certain development choices.

Understanding NYC’s Real Estate Legal Framework

New York City’s real estate laws form an intricate system designed to balance development, tenant rights, and economic growth. Key components include:

Zoning Regulations – NYC’s Zoning Resolution divides the city into residential, commercial, and manufacturing districts, each with specific usage rules. For businesses, this means restrictions on where they can operate, expand, or redevelop properties.

Rent Stabilization & Commercial Leases – While residential rent stabilization is widely discussed, commercial tenants also face regulations impacting lease renewals, rent increases, and tenant protections.

Tax Incentives & Abatements – Programs like ICAP (Industrial & Commercial Abatement Program) and REAP (Relocation and Employment Assistance Program) offer financial benefits to businesses in certain zones.

Landmark Preservation Laws – Strict regulations on historic buildings can limit modifications, affecting businesses in neighborhoods like SoHo or Tribeca.

Navigating these laws requires more than just awareness—it demands strategic planning to leverage benefits and mitigate constraints.

Daniel H.Weberman

How Real Estate Laws Influence Business Operations

Positive Impacts

Market Stability – Clear regulations prevent extreme volatility, offering businesses predictable leasing and purchasing environments.

Incentives for Growth – Tax abatements and grants encourage businesses to invest in underdeveloped areas, fostering economic expansion.

Tenant Protections – Some commercial lease regulations prevent sudden rent hikes, providing stability for small businesses.

Challenges & Constraints

High Compliance Costs – Legal fees, permit delays, and zoning adjustments increase operational expenses.

Zoning Limitations – Restrictions on property use can stifle expansion plans, particularly for manufacturing or industrial businesses.

Bureaucratic Delays – NYC’s approval processes for construction or renovations can take months, slowing down business initiatives.

For businesses, the key lies in understanding these dynamics to make informed real estate decisions—whether leasing, purchasing, or developing property.

The Role of Compliance in Mitigating Risk

Non-compliance with NYC’s real estate laws isn’t just a minor oversight—it can lead to severe financial and legal repercussions. Common pitfalls include:

Unpermitted Renovations – Altering a commercial space without proper approvals can result in fines or forced reversals.

Lease Violations – Misinterpreting commercial lease terms may lead to disputes or eviction.

Zoning Missteps – Operating a business in a non-compliant zone can trigger costly legal battles.

Proactive compliance isn’t just about avoiding penalties—it’s about safeguarding investments and ensuring smooth business operations.

When to Engage a Real Estate Lawyer in NYC

Given the complexities of NYC’s real estate laws, legal expertise isn’t just beneficial—it’s often necessary. Key scenarios where a lawyer adds value include:

1. Lease Negotiations & Disputes

Commercial leases are dense with clauses on rent escalations, subleasing, and termination rights. A lawyer ensures favorable terms and helps resolve conflicts before they escalate.

2. Property Acquisitions & Sales

From due diligence to contract reviews, legal guidance prevents oversights in transactions, especially with high-value commercial properties.

3. Zoning & Land Use Approvals

Navigating the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) or Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) requires expertise to expedite approvals.

4. Regulatory Compliance & Dispute Resolution

Whether facing a violation notice or a tenant lawsuit, a lawyer provides the strategic defense needed to protect business interests.

Choosing the Right Real Estate Attorney

Not all lawyers are equal in NYC’s competitive market. Look for:

Specialization in NYC real estate law (not just general practice)
Experience with local agencies (DOB, Landmarks Commission, etc.)
A track record in commercial transactions or litigation

NYRentownsell

Conclusion: Strategic Adaptation to Real Estate Laws

New York City’s real estate regulations are a double-edged sword—they can either facilitate growth or create barriers, depending on how businesses approach them. By staying informed, prioritizing compliance, and leveraging legal expertise, companies can turn regulatory challenges into competitive advantages.

For business owners and investors, the message is clear: In a city where real estate decisions make or break success, knowledge and proactive legal counsel are indispensable.

Need guidance on NYC real estate laws? Consult a specialized real estate attorney firm to ensure your business navigates the market effectively.

Shrouded in Secrecy: LLCs and High-End Real Estate

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce its latest publication, “Shrouded in Secrecy: LLCs and High-End Real Estate”, appearing on the front page of the September 2016 issue of the Brooklyn Barrister. The Brooklyn Barrister is the official publication of the Brooklyn Bar Association.

LLCs are limited liability companies that shield the owners by creating a personage that acts on behalf of the owners. This shield protects the owners from personal liability, so long as they do not create a nuisance, such as incurring large amounts of debt or causing felonies to be committed. By using LLCs as a conduit, individuals—both civilians and criminals alike—are able to purchase high-value properties while protecting their identities and similarly the funds used in the purchases.

The use of LLCs in high-end real estate transactions has increased dramatically in the last 15 years. According to an analysis for the Wall Street Journal performed by Zillow, in 2012 27% of U.S. homes sold in 2012 were bought by LLCs, as opposed to 5 years prior, when this percentage was only 17%. See Alyssa Abkowitz, Psst. Wanna Buy a House? WALL STREET JOURNAL, (Oct. 25, 2012). This growth has continued, and is particularly relevant in larger markets, such as New York.

High End Real Estate

You are encouraged to comment and receive free updates by subscribing to the firm’s Blog and Press Release sections.

The Effect of Tax Laws on Commercial Real Estate

Recently, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., addressing whether remote sellers of goods and services can be required to collect and remit sales taxes imposed by the consumer’s state.[1]

According to S. 106, 2016 Leg. Assembly, 91st Sess. (S. D. 2016) [hereinafter “the Act”], remote sellers must collect and remit sales tax to the state in which the goods are sold.[2] Consequently, the State of South Dakota filed for an injunction requiring respondents to register for licenses to collect and remit sales tax.[3]

Respondents Wayfair, Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, online merchants selling goods such as furniture and electronics, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Act is unconstitutional.[4] The Supreme Court therefore, granted certiorari to interpret precedent cases “in light of current economic realities.”[5]

Commerce Clause and Commercial Real Estate

To decide the issue, the Court analyzed the Commerce Clause and revisited two precedent cases:

National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois (1967)
Quill Corporation v. North Dakota (1992)

Both rulings determined that an out-of-state seller’s ability to collect and remit tax depended on physical presence in the state.[6][7] For instance, if a seller only permitted catalog orders, it was not considered to have a physical presence. Consequently, many online retailers escaped sales tax obligations.

Core Principles of State Taxation and Commercial Real Estate

The Court emphasized two guiding principles:

State regulations cannot disfavor interstate commerce.
States cannot impose undue burdens on such commerce.[8]

Moreover, combined with the Commerce Clause, these principles help courts decide outcomes in cases involving state laws.[9]

In Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, the Court held that a state can tax interstate commerce if the tax:

Applies to an activity with a significant connection to the state
Is fairly apportioned
Does not discriminate against interstate commerce
Is sufficiently related to state-provided services[10]

Thus, the Complete Auto test became central to the Court’s reasoning.

Physical Presence Rule and Commercial Real Estate

The “significant connection” requirement stems from due process, which demands that businesses have minimum contacts with the taxing state.[11] For example, in Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, the Court held that there must be a direct link between the state and the transaction it wishes to tax.[12]

However, the Court found that the physical presence rule was outdated and flawed in today’s digital economy. It unfairly advantaged online businesses without a physical presence in the state while simultaneously creating market distortions.[13][14] As a result, physical retailers bore heavier tax burdens, while e-commerce companies thrived without equal obligations.

Revenue Loss and State Impact

South Dakota and other states have faced massive revenue losses—between $8 and $33 billion annually—due to the Bellas Hess and Quill rulings.[15] As a result, South Dakota residents had to pay use tax on out-of-state purchases.[16]

Since South Dakota has no state income tax, sales tax revenue is critical for funding public services such as police and fire departments.[17] Moreover, some states, like Colorado, introduced notice requirements for remote vendors, signaling future challenges over defining physical presence.[18][19]

online shopping, e-commerce | The Effect of Tax Laws on Commercial Real Estate | Commercial Real Estate — Consumers have moved increasingly towards online shopping in the past few years due to convenience and efficiency

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Court ultimately overruled Quill and Bellas Hess, holding that the physical presence rule was untenable.[20] Applying the Complete Auto test, the Court found that respondents had significant economic and virtual contacts with South Dakota. Nevertheless, it left open the possibility that another Commerce Clause principle could challenge the Act in the future.[21]

Therefore, the decision granted South Dakota the authority to enforce its tax collection law on remote sellers.

Chief Justice Roberts’ Dissent

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, acknowledging that Bellas Hess was wrongly decided but arguing that Congress, not the Courts, should determine interstate commerce rules.[22] Furthermore, he emphasized stare decisis and claimed any harm caused by the physical presence rule was declining over time.[23]

Roberts warned that the decision could burden small businesses, raising costs and reducing product variety.[24] He argued that Congress is better positioned to weigh competing business interests and avoid drastic policy changes with unintended retroactive effects.[25]

Broader Implications for Online Retail and Real Estate

This ruling has wide-reaching implications:

Commercial real estate benefit from leveling competition with online retailers.[26]
Large e-commerce players like Amazon—which did not collect taxes on third-party sales in all states—face new obligations. Consequently, after the decision, Amazon shares fell, and other online marketplace stocks were expected to follow.[27]

As a result, South Dakota can now require remote sellers with over 200 transactions or $100,000+ in revenue from state residents to collect sales taxes. Consequently, this decision may encourage other states to follow suit, potentially generating $13 billion in tax revenue nationwide.[28]

Amazon, e-commerce, online shopping | The Effect of Tax Laws on Commercial Real Estate | Commercial Real Estate — Amazon

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., marks a turning point in online commerce and state taxation. By overruling outdated precedent, the Court opened the door for states to collect billions in lost tax revenue while reshaping the responsibilities of online sellers.

As the digital marketplace expands, future disputes will likely test the balance between fair taxation, interstate commerce, and small business protection.

[1] South Dakota v. Wayfair, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 2093 (2018).

[2] Id. at 2088.

[3] Id. at 2089; see U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3.

[4] State v. Wayfair Inc., 901 N.W.2d 754, 759-60 (S.D. 2017).

[5] South Dakota, 138 S. Ct. at 2089.

[6] Id. at 2087-88. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967); Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298(199).

[7] South Dakota, 138 S. Ct. at 2089.

[8] Id. at 2084.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 2085.

[11] Id. at 2093. See Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945); Burger King v. Rudzewicz,

471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985).

[12] Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340, 344-45 (1954); South Dakota, 138 S. Ct. at 2093.

[13] South Dakota, 138 S. Ct. at 2092.

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 2088.

[16] Id.

[17] Id. at 2097.

[18] Id. at 2098.

[19] Id. at 2099.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 2101.

[23] Id. at 2103.

[24] Id. at 2104.

[25] Id.

[26] Erin Stackley, Supreme Court Ruling in Wayfair Case a Win for Real Estate and States, RISMEDIA (August 12, 2018), http://rismedia.com/2018/08/12/supreme-court-ruling-wayfair-case-win-real-estate-sales/#close.

[27] Erin Stackley, Supreme Court Ruling in Wayfair Case a Win for Real Estate and States, RISMEDIA (August 12, 2018), http://rismedia.com/2018/08/12/supreme-court-ruling-wayfair-case-win-real-estate-sales/#close.

[28] Jeff Mengoli, The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair, BigCommerce, https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/south-dakota-v-wayfair/.

Landlord-Tenant Battle Over NYC Rent Stabilization

NYC Rent Stabilization | Best Law firm in Brooklyn NYC — Rent Stabilization

New York’s first step towards rent regulation can be traced back to the 1920s.[1] The history of rent control in New York has been a battle between owners and tenants for quite some time. In general, rent controlled apartments must be in buildings of three or more units constructed on or before February 1, 1947 and tenants must have occupied their apartment since at least July 1, 1971.[2] Under rent control, the maximum rent is determined by statute, through the Maximum Base Rent formula.[3] The Maximum Base Rent formula allows a landlord to increase monthly rent charges in order to recoup the costs of owning the building.[4] In addition, hardship increases may be allowed in specific circumstances, including when there is substantial rehabilitation to the building, and to recover the cost of major capital improvements.[5] When a rent-controlled apartment becomes vacant, it is subject to rent stabilization, or, if it does not meet the requirements of rent stabilization, it is deregulated entirely. If a rent-controlled apartment becomes vacant, and the maximum legal rent exceeds $2,000.00 instead of remaining under rent stabilization, the unit is deregulated.

Under the NYC Rent Stabilization Law, rent-stabilized apartments are subject to certain statutory rent increases, including a 20% increase for a two-year lease upon vacancy.[6] In addition, rent Stabilization Law §26-504.2 [a] provides for the deregulation of rent-stabilized apartments that reach a threshold of legal regulated rent. Specifically, deregulation will apply to:

“any housing accommodation which becomes vacant on or after [April 1, 1997] and before the effective date of the rent act of 2011 and where at the time the tenant vacated such housing accommodation the legal regulated rent was two thousand dollars or more per month; or, for any housing accommodation which is or becomes vacant on or after the effective date of the rent regulation reform act of 1997 and before the effective date of the rent act of 2011, with a legal regulated rent of two thousand dollars or more per month.”[7]

Owners have been abiding by Rent Stabilization laws for years but, when Richard Altman decided to sue his owner for illegally deregulating the unit he leased in 2003 by counting the 20% rent increase allowed by statute to push his rent over the $2,000.00 threshold, uncertainty spread throughout New York. For apartments involuntarily placed under rent regulation in New York City, those regulations were removed when a vacant apartment crossed a certain rent level. However, previously unresolved in the case law was whether, in order to effect deregulation, that rent level had to be reached during the tenancy of the last tenant prior to vacancy, or could be reached through implementation of various increases allowed to owners between two actual tenancies, such as the 20%.

Initially, in 2015 the New York Appellate Division for the First Department ruled in favor of Richard Altman, holding that although the owner was entitled to a 20% rent increase for Altman’s initial lease, that increase did not serve to deregulate the apartment because the rent was not over $2,000.00 at the time the prior tenant vacated the premises. The decision by the Appellate Division caused mass uncertainty by owners and tenants who had been previously deregulated by the 20% increase. Tenants believed they had won and were ready to start filing lawsuits to return their units to rent stabilized and collect damages for over paid rent. While tenants were excited about the court’s ruling the decision left landlords in a very difficult position because they had previously followed the law by including the 20% to deregulate the apartments and were facing potentially thousands of dollars in back-pay to tenants and thousands of apartments being re-stabilized. However, the Altman decision was appealed and heard by the New York Court of Appeals.

April 26, 2018 was a monumental day for landlords who were facing potential re-stabilization of thousands of previously deregulated apartments. The Court of Appeals introduced Altman with the statement that it must determine whether the 20% vacancy increase should be included in determining if the rent of a unit exceeds the $2,000.00 threshold. To tenant’s dismay, New York’s highest Court ruled in favor of the landlords allowing vacancy rent increases to be used to boost a unit’s cost over the deregulation threshold. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals ruled that the 20% increase should be considered when determining the legal regulated rent at the time of the vacancy. The decision was a massive defeat for Altman and all other tenants hoping to re-stabilize their rent. The Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote in her decision that state law makes it clear the vacancy rent increase should be counted when figuring if any apartment has reached the deregulation threshold. “The legislative history could not be clearer and leaves no doubt that the Legislature intended to include the vacancy increase,” DiFiore wrote.[8] The unanimous ruling by the Court of Appeals prevents the unjustified re-stablization of thousands of apartments that were appropriately deregulated according to law. It also prevents thousands of deregulated tenants from receiving a windfall in the form of a rent-stabilized apartment with a below-market rent.

The New York Court of Appeals decision will continue to allow landlords to deregulate units and buildings that were once rent stabilized. In a city where rent is continuing to increase and become unaffordable, rent stabilized apartments will continue to decrease. Unfortunately, for tenants seeking rent stabilized apartments there are not many left and there will not be new rent stabilized apartments appearing on the NYC real estate horizon. The endless new construction taking place all over New York will continue to make landlords deregulate apartments and drive rent prices up. Bear in mind if you are one of the lucky few living in a rent stabilized apartment, hold on to it for as long as you can. Otherwise, it will be like looking for a need in a haystack of brand-new, highly-priced, luxury apartments.

[1] Peter D. Salins & Gerard C.S. Mildner, Scarcity By Design: The Legacy of New York City‘s Housing Policies, 120-21, 52-53 (1992).

[2] N.Y.C. Admin. Code 26-403(e)(2)(h).

[3] N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, 2201.4.

[4] Id.

[5] N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, 2201.4(b)-(c).

[6] Rent Stabilization Law §26-511 [c] [5-a].

[7] Altman v. 285 W. Fourth LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02829.

[8] Id. at 6.

Chairman Bar Association Highlight

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Sewell’s recent, featured publication, The Ignominious Patent Troll, also prominently appears in the year-end publication of the Brooklyn Barrister.

In Network Protection Sciences, LLC, and similar cases, courts ought to be more willing to utilize sanctions as well as the other methods discussed herein to shutter the courthouse doors to abusive litigation. It is incomprehensible to have these abusive litigation deterrents and not utilize them when the record screams otherwise. Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers sanctions for litigation abuses and indicates that reasonable attorney fees can serve as one form of sanctions. Additionally, the Patent Act provides that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 285. Section 285’s language was first included in the 1946 statutory revision of damage calculations. However, rather than limiting the award to “exceptional cases”, the 1946 statute provided that “[t]he court may in its discretion award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 70 (1946 ed.).

It is understood that there is discretion involved in the sanction-worthy, decision-making process. Nevertheless, if rules that are available are not justly applied to appropriate situations, then there is little speculation that abusive litigation tactics will continue. As Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader says, “[j]udges know the routine all too well, and the law gives them the authority to stop it. We urge them to do so.” See Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien & David Hricik, Make Trolls Pay in Court, N.Y.TIMES, June 5, 2013, at A5.”

The Brooklyn Barrister is the official publication of the Brooklyn Bar Association. Dayrel looks forward to continuing his leadership roles as Chair of the Brooklyn Bar Association Intellectual Property Committee and Vice-Chair of the Brooklyn Bar Association Real Property Committee.

Brooklyn Bridge

Brooklyn Bar Association

Follow LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC