Jason R. Davidson joined Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. in 2003 and is a Member with the firm’s Litigation Department. He handles commercial and residential landlord-tenant matters, contract and lease disputes, and complex real estate and construction litigation in state and federal courts.
Davidson has litigated cases in Federal District Court and in New York State trial and appellate courts, including the New York State Court of Appeals. He has also represented clients before various New York City administrative agencies, including the New York City Loft Board, the Office of Administrative Trial and Hearings, the Environmental Control Board, and the Board of Standards and Appeals.
Davidson started his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in the trial division and in the special investigation bureau of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, prosecuting criminals and investigating international narcotics and money laundering organizations.
Davidson is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He serves on the judicial screening committee of Legal Law Association of Greater New York and on the Board of Directors of the Hetrick-Martin Institute.
Originally from El Salvador, Davidson is fluent in Spanish. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the State University of New York at Albany and a J.D. from the American University, Washington College of Law, where he was a participant in the International Human Rights Law Clinic and the international studies program at the University of Chile School of Law.
First Admitted: 1997, New York
Professional Webpage: http://www.rosenbergestis.com/Attorney-Profiles/Jason-R-Davi...
Bar / Professional Activity
- Legal Law Association of Greater New York, Member, 2026
- New York City Bar Association, Member, 2026
- U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, 2002
- New York, 1997
Representative Clients
- Edison Properties, LLC IGI/Izaki Group Investment USA New York Downtown Hospital Rose Hill Property Assoc., Inc./Tan Holding Corp. Sedesco, Inc. Shorenstein
Educational Background
- American University, Washington College of Law
- State University of New York at Albany
Scholarly Lectures / Writings
- Need To Protect Your Neighbor’s Property? It’s Going To Cost You., Co-Author, Need To Protect Your Neighbor’s Property? It’s Going To Cost You, New York Law Journal, 2022
- Dear clients, Last week, the First Department issued a decision in the Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc., v 29 West 19 Condominium, et al., 2022 NY Slip Op 00975 (1st Dept Feb. 15, 2022) (click here to read the decision), which confirmed that, although not expressly stated, Section 881 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) authorizes awards of license fees, attorneys’ fees, or engineering or other design professional fees. This means that courts will order developers to pay an adjacent owner license fees and professionals’ fees incurred in negotiating a license agreement, as well as incurred by the adjacent owner in defending against an RPAPL § 881 proceeding — which has not always been the case. Developers are required by, among other things, the New York City Building Code, to protect their neighbor’s property while performing construction. When a developer and an adjacent owner reach an impasse while negotiating a license agreement and an adjacent owner refuses access for the installation of temporary protection required by law, the developer can seek court-ordered access by commencing a special proceeding pursuant to RPAPL § 881. This decision will undoubtedly have a significant impact on developers who seek to improve their property. Developers will need to account for paying their neighbors’ professionals’ fees and monthly license fees when developing their projects’ budgets. It will also, almost certainly, lead to an increased amount of RPAPL § 881 proceedings against adjacent owners who are emboldened by this decision and will delay the developers’ projects until they receive the compensation to which they believe they are entitled. As a result, courts will spend their time determining what license fee amounts are “reasonable.” Developers will be smart to keep negotiations with adjacent owners on a short leash, offer reasonable compensation and commence RPAPL § 881 proceedings as soon as it is clear that the adjacent owner’s demands are unreasonable, so as to avoid any further delays of its project caused by the neighbor’s obstruction. If you have any questions about the impact of this case on your property or any other questions, please feel free to contact us., Co-Author, RPAPL § 881 Decision Impacts Developers Seeking to Improve Their Properties, R&E Client Alert/Industry Update, 2022
- Dear clients, This week the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, delivered a major victory to owners of buildings subject to the Loft Law. In Matter of Aurora Assoc. LLC v Locatelli (click here to read the decision), the Court held that covered units subject to a sale of rights and improvements are not subject to rent stabilization under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (“ETPA”). The Court’s decision overruled the holding in Acevedo v Piano Bldg. LLC (70 AD3d 124, 1st Dept 2009), where the Appellate Division, First Department held that Loft Law units subject to sales of rights and improvements were subject to regulation under ETPA in pre-1974 buildings containing six or more units. Accordingly, where an owner purchased or purchases a tenant’s Loft Law rights and improvements, that unit is no longer subject to any form of rent regulation, even where the building contains six or more units. The only exception is where the building receives tax benefits that require rent regulation. Accordingly, unlike units that are rent stabilized under the ETPA, which can no longer be deregulated, Loft Law units can be permanently deregulated. If you have any questions about the impact of this case on your building or any other Loft Law questions, please feel free to contact us. , Co-Author, Loft Law Update: Court of Appeals Delivers Major Victory to Owners of Loft Law Buildings, R&E Client Alert/Industry Update, 2022
Firm News (Newsletters)
- Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has secured a victory in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, on behalf of Workable Atlantic LLC in a dispute over the 2018 acquisition of a mixed-use interim multiple dwelling property at 1236 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, NY. Adam Lindenbaum and Jason R. Davidson, members with Rosenberg & Estis, represented Workable Atlantic LLC, which purchased the property from 1236 Atlantic LLC, before Justice Loren Baily-Schiffman. Plaintiffs, Steven Seidler, Stephanie Seidler Family Trust and Scott Seidler Family Trust, commenced an action under the New York Debtor Creditor Law to set aside the transfer of the property to Workable Atlantic LLC. Plaintiffs claimed that because they were potential judgment creditors of 1236 Atlantic LLC (and/or its members and principals) in a pending lawsuit for money damages, the transaction between Workable Atlantic LLC and 1236 Atlantic LLC was intended to hinder plaintiffs’ collection of a possible future judgment. In furtherance of their claims, plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Workable Atlantic LLC was some kind of alter-ego of 1236 Atlantic LLC created to perpetuate a fraudulent conveyance of the property. To that end, plaintiffs alleged that the property was purchased for less than fair market value and, in doing so, that Workable Atlantic LLC never satisfied its mortgage with co-defendant Signature Bank. Rosenberg & Estis filed a motion to dismiss, establishing that plaintiffs’ claims were predicated on a series of outlandish, demonstrably false, and wholly fabricated theories — all of which were legally insufficient and refuted by the documentary evidence submitted by Workable Atlantic LLC. Specifically, Rosenberg & Estis’ motion evidenced that seller and purchaser entered into an agreement at arm’s length for fair market value ($17.1 Million), with substantial net proceeds going to the seller and without actual intent to defraud or hinder plaintiffs’ collection upon a future judgment. The Court held that any damages to which plaintiffs might be entitled should be pursued in their collateral litigation against the seller parties, with whom plaintiffs made their investment. Justice Baily-Schiffman granted Rosenberg & Estis’ motion, dismissing the action based on lack of merit, cancelling the notice of pendency against the building and denying plaintiffs’ separate motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court also dismissed the action against co-defendant Signature Bank, the seller’s mortgagee, which was fully-satisfied at the closing and the mortgage against the property terminated accordingly. “This decision shows that a vigorous defense of client’s rights can produce a decisive victory,” Lindenbaum said. “Our client showed tremendous patience in withstanding these baseless claims and unwarranted encumbrance against its property.”, Press Release - Rosenberg & Estis Secures Court Win In Dispute Over Brooklyn Property Acquisition
- Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has prevailed on appeal at the Appellate Division, Second Department, successfully opposing a tenant’s effort to overturn a money judgment the firm had obtained for its client, a New York City property owner, in New York State Supreme Court. Jason R. Davidson, member with Rosenberg & Estis, represented the owner. In 2015, the tenant sued Rosenberg & Estis’s client, a commercial property owner, following a fire that had occurred at the Brooklyn property. Thereafter, the owner moved for an order compelling the tenant to pay rent during the pendency of the action. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was entitled to a rent abatement until the owner substantially completed repairs resulting from the fire, and that the rent reverted to the full amount due upon such substantial completion. The tenant, in violation of the court’s order, failed to pay any of the abated rent or, after substantial completion of repairs, the full rent due. Accordingly, the owner moved for a money judgment for these unpaid sums. The tenant’s attorney failed to file opposition papers, but appeared at oral argument of the motion, and the court granted the owner’s motion for a six-figure money judgment. One year after the judgment was issued, the tenant moved to vacate the judgment based on its supposed “default” in submitting written opposition to the owner’s motion. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and denied the motion, letting the money judgment stand. The tenant appealed and the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, holding, among other things, that “the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in opposing the defendant’s motion” and, further, that “the plaintiff failed to explain why he waited approximately one year after the court granted the defendant’s motion and entered the order and judgment before moving to vacate his default.” “This ruling is further proof that Rosenberg & Estis, P.C.’s zealous representation of client interests in New York State’s trial and appellate courts consistently protects property owners’ rights,”., Press Release - Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. Secures Appellate Division Win For Property Owner In Dispute Over Rent Payments Following A Fire
- NEW YORK, November 10, 2022 – Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. has defeated an appeal by a cooperative shareholder arguing that he should be considered a tenant of a Brooklyn loft building and, therefore, exempt from paying maintenance fees or being evicted. Rosenberg & Estis members Jason R. Davidson represented the cooperative board before the Appellate Division, Second Department. The firm has long specialized in New York’s unique Loft Law, which was enacted in 1982 and created a new class of buildings known as interim multiple dwellings or “lofts.” The Loft Law was designed to protect tenants and to create a pathway for property owners to legally upgrade and convert former commercial and industrial spaces to legal residential occupancy. In this case, the appellant was seeking, among other things, a preliminary injunction barring the cooperative board from recovering assessments and maintenance fees, and terminating his proprietary lease. The appellant claimed that he was a tenant entitled to protections under the Loft Law and, therefore, that the cooperative board could not seek to collect unpaid maintenance and assessments pursuant to New York’s Multiple Dwelling Law — which precludes a landlord from recovering rent where a building lacks a residential certificate of occupancy. However, the court, agreeing with and adopting Rosenberg & Estis’s arguments, held that such law was not meant for an individual like the appellant, who, as a shareholder, is an “owner-occupant” of the cooperative housing corporation and not a tenant entitled to legal protections against the actions of the owner — since, in fact, the appellant is himself an owner. “This is a case of ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it, too,’”. “As an original shareholder who formed the co-op decades ago, the appellant knew it would take significant expense to upgrade the property to the extent necessary to secure a residential certificate of occupancy. Yet when the board attempted to recover those costs, he complained as if he was a third-party tenant in the property. We are gratified that the court saw through this charade and that we successfully protected the cooperative’s rights.” The decision paves the way for the cooperative to recover its costs to bring the building up to code and to terminate the appellant’s proprietary lease for noncompliance with his obligations thereunder. “New York’s Loft Law is complex, and cases such as this highlight the need for experienced representation,” said Davidson. “Rosenberg & Estis has been successfully helping clients navigate the Loft Law for decades, and we continue to stay abreast of legislative changes and case law that help us to continue to secure important court victories such as this one.”, Press Release - Appellate Division Finds Loft Co-Op Shareholder Not A ‘Residential Occupant’ Entitled To Eviction Protections
Honors
- Preeminent Peer Rated, Martindale - Hubbell, 2025
Office location for Jason R. Davidson
11 Grand Central East
New York, NY 10017
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2016 - 2025