Jonathan Mann
Jonathan Mann founded Mann Law PLLC in 2023 after working for two well-known and respected New York City Real Estate Law Firms,
Kucker & Bruh, LLP and Amsterdam & Lewinter, LLP.
At Amsterdam and Lewinter Mr. Mann supervised all the Landlord and Tenant litigation in the boroughs of Manhattan and Queens and personally handled all the complex trials in both counties. Mr. Mann has additionally represented various Mitchell Lama co-ops and has successfully obtained multiple certificates of eviction against non-complaint shareholders. As a successful practitioner Mr. Mann has developed an invaluable reputation for being able to conduct any type of trial as an experienced and confident litigator. Jonathan Mann’s encyclopedic knowledge of the law allows him to help advise his clients to correctly choose between trial or an appropriate settlement.
Mr. Mann practices as lead counsel for Mann Law PLLC representing landlords in both residential and commercial real estate litigation in both the
New York City Civil Courts and the New York State Supreme Courts.
Mr. Mann has successfully litigated thousands of non-payment proceedings, involving both rent-stabilized as well as luxury apartments. Many cases that Mr. Mann has handled have been holdovers including a recent successful decision in which Jonathan, on behalf of his client, successfully opposed a claim of succession by a long term occupant and matter and obtained a warrant of eviction in a holdover proceeding in the matter entitled 957 Park Avenue LLC v. Francisco Ordonezwherein the landlord sought to recover a rent-control apartment and the licensee of the apartment raised a Braschi defense. In the decision the Honorable Jack Stoller, J.H.C. the supervising Judge of New York County held that:
“[a] broader view of the relationship between respondent and co-respondent raises some questions.” The respondent had designated the “co-respondent as a beneficiary of respondent’s life insurance and authorizes co-respondent to make decisions about health care but co-respondent did not reciprocate.”
The court stated that “[a]ll else being equal, the designations of beneficiaries are proxies, which would be more consequential for an ostensible family member in his eighties than the family member in his thirties or forties. co-respondent’s use of other family members on his will, living will, durable power of attorney is of a piece with co-respondent’s use of someone other than respondent as an emergency contact.”[SB1] [SB2]
The court stated that e-mail evidence revealed a “asymmetric dynamic.” The respondent would e-mail the co-respondent, that he regarded the co-respondent
“like a father” and called him “dad John” signed off “hugs your son Francisco.”
In contrast, with “the exception of one response from co-respondent saying ‘Hello, son,’ co-respondent’s emails to respondent did not respond in kind.” In fact, one e-mail accused the respondent “of stealing co-respondent’s wife’s picture and threatening to lock respondent out so that
co-respondent could charge respondent’s room for what it is worth.”
Other e-mails accused the respondent of stealing the co-respondent computer equipment, and involved a dispute as to where the respondent left money.
The court noted that “the tenor of the e-mails of co-respondent’s family shifted over time, also, from offering respondent thanks for watching out for co-respondent to expressing suspicion that respondent’s goal was to take over the…premises, which is consistent with respondent’s testimony that co-respondent’s family eventually took action to restrict contact between respondent and co-respondent when co-respondent’s condition rendered him unable to continue to live in the…premises.”
The court acknowledged that “family members can certainly have disagreeable exchanges that did not implicate the viability of the family member relationship.” However it found that the “totality of the actions of respondent and co-respondent paint the picture of a younger person making attempts to be deemed a family member of an older person who tolerates it at best but is not on board. A one-sided relationship as such does not show the kind of interdependence in a familial sense that characterizes a non-traditional family relationship.”
The court held that the record failed to show “the level of emotional and financial interdependence that characterizes a family relationship between respondent and co-respondent.” Thus, the court awarded petitioner a final judgment of possession and authorized issuance of a warrant of eviction.
This decision was featured in the New York Law Journal and was separately the subject of an article written by Scott Mollen, Esq., the well respected and decades-long contributor to the New York Law Journal.
Mr. Mann has successfully represented landlords in all areas of landlord-tenant litigation and prides himself on his responsiveness to his clients. Many clients have remarked that they feel personally guided by Mr. Mann in a way that makes their cases stronger. The difficult decisions and tasks associated with litigation require the type of mutual bond that Jonathan Mann has formed with his clients. Mr. Mann prides himself on personally seeing to it that all issues are addressed soon after his clients email him or phone him.
When not overseeing the firm Jonathan enjoys spending quality time with his beautiful wife and loving children. Jonathan can be found on most weekends at various hockey rinks throughout Long Island, attempting to stay warm, while watching his sons play travel hockey.
Education
JD, Touro Law School
York University, Toronto, Canada, Deans List
Bar Admissions
New York
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York