April 25, 2025 – Letitia James’ defense lawyer Abbe Lowell, in response to a federal criminal referral, accidentally confirms fraud allegations

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

Letitia James Brooklyn property (Credit: Google Maps)

In a high-stakes response to a federal criminal referral, Letitia James’ defense lawyer, Abbe David Lowell, submitted a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi that made a stunning error: he fundamentally misunderstood the very property at the center of the investigation. The letter, prompted by the FHFA’s referral for potential mortgage fraud, falsely claimed James’ Brooklyn property “has always functioned as a four-person residence.” But official records, utility infrastructure, and tenant complaints paint a very different—and legally significant—picture.

In his letter to the US Attorney General, James’ lawyer made these specific claims about 296 Lafayette Avenue:

“In 2001, Ms. James purchased her Brooklyn, New York home with her savings to facilitate supporting her mother (sick at the time) and give other family members a place to live. Ms. James and her family members have lived there since 2001. The co-occupancy dwelling has four floors and, for as long as Ms. James has lived there, the property has always functioned as a four-person residence. Initially, Ms. James’ mother lived on the first floor; Ms. James occupied the second floor; a close family friend occupied the third floor; and her brother occupied the fourth floor. The basement did not have any unit. After Ms. James’ mother died, and to this day, Ms. James has occupied the first and second floor units for herself, while her close family friend and brother occupy units on the top two floors.”

This description reveals a lawyer completely unfamiliar with:

  • The building’s legal classification
  • The physical layout of the property
  • The actual utility services present
  • The documented complaint history

Most strikingly, the Certificate of Occupancy shows no fourth floor exists—yet the lawyer claims James’ brother lives there. That alone should have disqualified the letter.

The lawyer appears to be operating from a completely misaligned floor numbering system — a critical error that fundamentally affects how we understand the entire property and the tenant complaints:

Lawyer’s Floor Numbering
  • “Basement”: Actually the cellar — not legal for residential use. Lawyer conflates this with the basement.
  • “First Floor”: Actually the basement, which contains Unit 1 (which the lawyer claimed was occupied by James’ mother, but records show was occupied by tenants)
  • “Second Floor”: Actually the first floor (location of Unit 2B, a registered tenant unit)
  • “Third Floor”: Actually the second floor (lawyer claims it’s a single unit, but C/O says otherwise)
  • “Fourth Floor”: Doesn’t exist—this is pure fabrication
Actual Building (Per C/O)
  • Cellar: Not a legal residential space
  • Basement: One legal unit (“Unit 1” in HPD records)
  • First Floor: One legal unit (however, includes “Unit 2B” in HPD complaint records)
  • Second Floor: One legal unit
  • Third Floor: TWO separate legal units
  • Fourth Floor: Does not exist

This misalignment is critical because tenant complaints from “Unit 1” and “Unit 2B” correspond to spaces the lawyer claims were exclusively occupied by James and her mother—not by unrelated tenants. When we correctly align the floors, we see that these complaints directly contradict the lawyer’s claims about who lived where.

This isn’t just an embarrassing error in a routine real estate transaction, but in a letter to the U.S. Attorney General defending New York’s chief legal officer. The attorney isn’t just mistaken—he’s describing a building that doesn’t exist. (Read more: White Collar Fraud, 4/25/2025)  (Archive)