top of page
Suit and Tie

Experienced Attorneys Providing Personalized Legal Solutions

Contact us Today: (917) 673-3768

Why Choose Law Office of Charles A. Higgs






Call Today: (917) 673-3768


Obtained an Order and Decision Discharging and Cancelling a $1 Million + Mortgage

The Law Office of Charles A. Higgs represented a property owner in a quiet title action against a mortgage company and obtained a decision and order from the Court, which ruled in favor of our Client. In its Decision and Order, the Court held that the $1million + mortgage against our Client's property was time-barred as a result of the expiration of the statute of limitations and as a result the Court directed that the mortgage be discharged and cancelled.

Obtained a Decision and Order dismissing an action against our Client on Statute of Frauds grounds

The Law Office of Charles A. Higgs represented a property owner in an action commenced against them asserting claims of fraudulent conveyance and seeking specific performance. The Court entered a Decision and Order granting our Motion to Dismiss the Action on the basis that among other things the asserted causes of action against our Client were barred by the Statute of Frauds.

Eliminated Significant Debt and obtained Release of Personal Guarantee for Taxi Medallion Owner

The Law Office of Charles A. Higgs represented a Taxicab Company in the first case filed in the Southern District of New York under the recently enacted Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the case was also one of the first Subchapter V Bankruptcy Cases filed in the United States. Through litigation and negotiation, we were able to obtain a settlement that eliminated approximately $380,000 of debt and resulted in a release of the personal guarantee signed by the corporate officer.

Obtained Decision and Order allowing our Client to proceed with a Negligence Claim against the Mortgage Company

Represented 50 + Unit Co-Op Building in Litigation, which led to a Favorable Settlement

The Law Office of Charles A. Higgs represented a Housing Finance Development Corp with respect to its 50+ unit Co-Op building, in an adversary proceeding commenced against the City of New York, which sought among other things, a determination that the NYC in rem tax foreclosure laws are unconstitutional. Our firm was able to obtain a settlement for our Client, which resulted in the In Rem Foreclosure Judgment being vacated and the In Rem Foreclosure Action being dismissed as to our Client's property.

Foreclosure Action Dismissed based on Lack of Strict Compliance with RPAPL 1304

The Law Office of Charles A. Higgs successfully represented our client, a homeowner, in a foreclosure action. The Court agreed with our position that the mortgage company failed to properly address the 90-day pre-foreclosure notice pursuant to RPAPL 1304, where the bank failed to address the notice to a specific unit number in a multi-unit property, and as a result the Court denied the mortgage company's motion for summary judgment and instead dismissed the foreclosure action.

Obtained Settlement Resulting in $890,000 Mortgage being reduced to $450,000

The Law Office of Charles A. Higgs represented homeowners in mortgage litigation, which resulted in a settlement in which the Mortgage Company agreed to eliminate approximately $440,000 from the Mortgage, resulting in the Mortgage balance being reduced from approximately $890,000 to $450,000.

(917) 673-3768

The Law Office of Charles A. Higgs obtained a favorable decision denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss our Client's negligence claim against a Mortgage Company.  A Federal Judge in the Eastern District of New York, issued a written decision in which the Court ruled that our Client could proceed with her negligence claim agains the Mortgage Company under a theory of assumption of duty of care. This case is one of the few decisions allowing a borrower to proceed against a Mortgage Company for Negligence as case law in New York and the 2nd Circuit holds that Mortgage Companies and Mortgage Servicers do not owe mortgage borrowers/home owners a duty of care, which in turn ordinarily precludes  mortgage borrowers/home owners from asserting a cause of action for Negligence against Mortgage companies. We hope that the decision achieved in this case opens the door as a way for  more borrowers to establish negligence claims against Mortgage Companies.

Our Practice Areas






bottom of page