Commercial real estate in New York has always lived at the intersection of ambition and dispute. People make deals with a sense of hope, but there is conflict in every lease, every growth plan, and every investment strategy. It's just how the business works. In the past few years, litigation has changed not because there is more of it, but because of how it looks. Law changes, changing court rulings, and changing market conditions have changed the battlefield for landlords, tenants, and property owners all.
Few practitioners have a closer vantage point than Nativ Winiarsky, a partner at Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens LLP, who has been at the center of some of the city’s most consequential landlord-tenant cases. His view is not based on vague theories but on the everyday experiences of working in trials, appeals, and high-stakes disagreements. Real estate owners, investors, and lawyers who work in New York's judicial system need to know about these trends in order to stay alive.
The HSTPA of 2019 reshaped the framework of rent regulation, narrowing avenues for rent increases, limiting landlord remedies, and creating new layers of complexity in overcharge claims. The law has been the subject of ongoing litigation, with courts sometimes making it clearer and sometimes making it harder to understand what it means.
Nativ Winiarsky points out that for commercial property owners and mixed-use landlords, these interpretations ripple far beyond residential disputes. Questions of fraud, default formulas, and applying rules to the past all have an effect on overall litigation tactics. The lesson is clear: laws don't stay the same after they are passed. You can see how they change over time in case law, and each appellate decision changes the ground under current disputes.
The issue of fraud keeps coming up in commercial real estate lawsuits, mostly when there are disagreements about rent stability and overcharges. Tenants have been saying more and more that landlord actions are like fraud plans, which has led to more intense court supervision.
For Nativ Winiarsky, this trend reinforces the necessity of precision in documentation and transparency in transactions. There are more claims of fraud being looked into by courts than ever before, even when the main dispute could be settled by a simpler reading of the law. Now, property owners need to be aware that claims won't always stay within the bounds of the lease. They might be rethought in light of purpose, behavior, and credibility.
The pandemic accelerated a trend already plaguing New York’s court system: significant backlog. Even though commercial cases aren't always given the same level of importance as residential issues, they have still been delayed. Calendars that move in strange ways are still a problem for the Housing Court, the Supreme Court, and even lower courts.
Nativ Winiarsky notes that these delays reshape litigation strategy. Property owners have to think about how much it costs to have long-lasting disagreements, how much it costs to have tenants who don't pay, and whether it's better to settle the argument quickly or go to court. Time has always been important in lawsuits, but right now it's an even more important part of figuring out how much risk there is.
Virtual Housing Court and electronic filings are no longer experimental. They are an important part of lawsuits. These changes have made things more efficient, but they have also changed lobbying. Lawyers now have to deal with digital meetings that are different from real courtrooms when it comes to credibility, cross-examination, and even settlement talks.
From Nativ Winiarsky’s perspective, technology has forced litigators to adapt both strategically and stylistically. When screens get in the way, things like how proof is presented, how clear documents are, and even the rhythm of an oral argument change. The clear effect on property owners is that they must now hire lawyers who know how to effectively represent them in this hybrid situation.
While commercial litigation is a technical process, it increasingly exists under the scrutiny of public perception. Cases involving major landlords or prominent properties often attract attention that extends beyond the courtroom. Tenants, advocacy groups, and media coverage can influence the context in which disputes unfold.
For litigators like Nativ Winiarsky, this adds another dimension to case strategy. Legal arguments must be airtight, but professional credibility and public optics cannot be ignored. A win in court that erodes trust outside of it may not serve a client’s long-term interest.
Commercial real estate has always involved risk, but the legal risks facing landlords and property owners today are more layered and dynamic than ever. From statutory reform to procedural backlogs, from fraud claims to virtual courtrooms, the environment demands vigilance, adaptability, and informed strategy.
The city may change, its statutes may shift, and its courts may adapt, but one fact remains: commercial real estate in New York will continue to be shaped as much by litigation as by investment. And understanding those legal realities, as Nativ Winiarsky makes clear, is the first step in ensuring property owners remain prepared for what comes next.
