Photo of David R. Brody

David R. Brody

Contact Me:

Practice Areas

  • Supreme Court Litigation
  • Loft Law
  • Zoning/Land Use


David R. Brody has been a real estate litigator since 1979. As a Senior Partner of the Firm's Supreme Court Division, he supervises many of the Supreme Court, Federal Court and agency litigations the Firm handles. In addition, he litigates in his areas of specialty which include complex litigations in all courts and various administrative agencies primarily involving (i) the conversion of commercial/manufacturing buildings to residential use and the attendant problems caused by claims of rent regulation and (ii) issues arising under the various building-related laws/rules, including Multiple Dwelling Law Article 7-C (the "Loft Law"), the New York City Building Code and Zoning Resolution and related statutes and regulations.

During his 39 years of litigation, Mr. Brody has managed and tried more than 190 cases to conclusion, including actions in Federal, Supreme, and Civil Courts, arbitrations before the American Arbitration Association, and hearings before administrative agencies, including the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings. His successful trials include: Holy Properties v. Cole, 87 N.Y.2d 130 (1995), which the Firm successfully prosecuted through and including the Court of Appeals, ultimately resulting in the client recovering approximately $1.5 million dollars of rent plus legal fees.

Recent years have seen successful trials and settlements in loft cases, holdover proceedings, ejectment actions, mold remediation cases, and various commercial litigations. In the early part of this decade, he focused on Sheila Properties v. A Real Good Plumber Inc., 874 N.Y.S.2d 145 (2009) and successfully claimed that the Appellate Division's affirmance of a judgment of ejectment was not undone by the subsequent June 21, 2010 amendment of the Loft Law. Subsequently, he enabled other owners to avoid coverage of tenants who had agreed to vacate prior to the change in the law and then attempted to reneg after the law changed.

In recent years, the scope of his practice has included tenant buyouts and evictions to enable the conversion of loft/commercial buildings to residential use and in a completely separate sub-specialty, litigating the fair market value of a mid-town hotel and issues relating to the relationship of its foreign multi-national principals involving their various European hotels. He is an occasional lecturer on issues and problems attendant to Loft conversions as well as the 2010 amendment to the Loft Law (Multiple Dwelling Law Article 7-C), and he is also retained as a consultant or co-counsel by other law firms requiring such expertise.

Notable Cases

  • Board of Managers of Village Mall at Hillcrest Condominium v. Banerjee, (Sup. Ct. Queens County Dec. 22, 2016). Court granted summary judgment to Board, ordering unit holder to remove balcony enclosure that had been in place since 1979. Court relied on business judgment rule and on board resolution the firm assisted in drafting. Senior Partner Eric M. Goidel served as Board's counsel, and Senior Partner David R. Brody and Counsel Brian D. Graifman litigated.
  • Rich Mayer, v. 812-816 Broadway, LLC,& Lighthouse Properties, LLC, Judge initially found jurisdiction, but on Mr. Brody's motion to reargue, the Court reversed itself holding that the claim was more in the nature of a diminution of services than a code violation claim. The court determined that there was no jurisdiction to hear such a claim and dismissed.
  • Courts routinely grant Yellowstone injunctions to prevent forfeiture of a commercial tenant's interest prior to a determination of the merits, where the tenant demonstrates the existence of a commercial lease, receipt of a notice of default, a timely application for a temporary restraining order and the desire and ability to cure the alleged default. However, courts have held that a tenant faced with a notice to cure for failure to maintain insurance is not entitled to a Yellowstone injunction because such a default is not curable. As the Supreme Court, Queens County, recently explained in NY Great Stone Inc. v. Two Fulton Square LLC, a failure to maintain insurance is not a curable default because a prospective insurance policy does not protect a landlord against unknown claims that might arise during the period in which no coverage existed.
  • Sarah Weinberg v. Leslie Sultan, et al, In this highly publicized case, a client purchased two buildings in foreclosure on West 46th Street in Manhattan. The seller, occupying the apartment in the building stipulated to vacate, and a portion of the proceeds from the sale were escrowed to secure her obligation. The seller commenced an action in Supreme Court to rescind the sale, alleging that the new landlord, her attorneys and her family members defrauded her into selling the buildings. The seller's claim to rescind the sale was dismissed based upon failure to allege a fraudulent act. The escrow to secure the seller's departure from the buildings was released to the landlord because she failed to vacate and the stay of her eviction was lifted.


  • Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York
    • J.D. - 1979
  • Middlebury College
    • B.A. - 1974

Bar Admissions

  • New York, 1979
  • U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York, 1989

Published Works

Professional Associations

  • Association of the Bar of the City of New York
  • New York County Lawyers Association
  • New York State Bar Association

Current Employment Position

  • Senior Partner