Top NYC Commercial Litigator, Daniel Goldenberg

Daniel R. Goldenberg

Senior Counsel

Practice Areas
  • New York State
  • Southern District of New York
  • Eastern District of New York
  • Brooklyn Law School, J.D., 2015
  • Zicklin School of Business, Macaulay Honors College at Baruch College, CUNY, B.B.A., 2012
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Daniel Goldenberg is a Senior Counsel in Davidoff Hutcher & Citron’s Commercial Litigation practice in the firm’s New York City office. Daniel specializes his practice in commercial, construction, and real estate litigation, as well as not-for-profit governance. As a litigator, he participates in all phases of litigation before New York State, Federal, and Bankruptcy Courts, including virtual trials since the onset of COVID-19.

Daniel tries contract and joint-venture disputes, partnership dissolutions, specific performance actions, adjoining property conflicts, and other matters stemming from simple to complex real estate transactions and developments. His skills include counseling individual property owners and institutional developers, management companies, hoteliers, and financiers with respect to their governing documents and loan agreements, repositioning their assets, enforcing available lender’s, creditor’s, and debtor’s rights, viability of structural designs with their engineers and architects, and monitoring the progress of projects.

Daniel’s consistent focus on New York City real estate continues to foster close relationships with active developers and their counsel, help anticipate litigation strategy, and facilitate quicker resolutions. Apart from his substantive experience, Daniel excels in the aggressive environment for which the New York City real estate industry is known. fluent in Russian. Prior to joining DHC, Daniel was an associate at Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP.

Notable Cases

  • NY Oakland LLC v. Goldstein, No. 502721/2021, 2021 WL 5312185 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021) wherein Daniel successfully argued that a vendee’s lien may be maintained on a property even if the action only seeks the return of the down payment because, upon execution of a contract of sale of real property and part payment, the purchaser becomes equitable owner pro tanto and enjoys an equitable lien thereon.
  • Wellbilt Equipment Corp. v. El-Gamal, No. 653917/2019, 2021 WL 1711552 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021) wherein the Court agreed with Daniel’s contention that a creditor cannot compel the turnover of a Delaware limited liability company as part of its post-judgment enforcement.
  • 2520 Jerome Ave., LLC v Corp. of Rector, 185 AD3d 439 (1st Dept. 2020) wherein the Court affirmed the motion court’s decision which granted Daniel’s request for dismissal on behalf of the New York Episcopal Church. The First Department agreed that religious corporation law defers to ecclesial hierarchy and, in this instance, the Bishops, Standing Committees, and the Diocese’s refusal to sell overrides the individual rectory’s decision and contract to sell the church to a developer.
  • Riseboro Community Partn. Inc. v. SunAmerica Hous. Fund No. 682, 2019 WL 3753795 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2019) wherein Daniel represented a not-for-profit to challenge the institutional interpretation of a Section 42 Right of First Refusal under the Internal Revenue Code. Daniel’s suggested interpretation of the statute was assumed in the 2021 Build Back Better Act and, together with the action, has had a national impact on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit industry.
  • New York State Homeless Hous. and Assistance Corp., v. TAFSC Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., Third Ave. Fam. Serv. Ctr., et al., 2018 WL 4501943 (1st Dept. 2018) wherein Daniel represented a New York State agency to successfully terminate, remove, and replace the not-for-profit agency which operated and sponsored a housing development after the State discovered robust failures and mismanagement.
  • 227–229 East 14th Street Housing Development Fund Corp. v. Vaknine, 2017 WL 2828698 (N.Y. Sup. 2017) wherein Daniel convinced the Court to reiterate a housing development fund corporation’s discretion in refusing applicants, even if such applicants purchased the proprietary lease in an auction and were, therefore, shareholders by operation of law.

Classes & Seminars

  • CLE Instructor, Force Majeure in Time of COVID-19, June 2020
  • Speaker, Webinar: The Emerging Issues In The Expiring-Use Affordability Crisis, January & March 2019
  • Speaker, HDFCs 101: Panel discussion on various issues facing HDFCs, February 2017
  • Speaker, The Brownfields Program: How to Develop Brownfield Sites for Affordable Housing, April 2017


  • Holocaust Art/Property Restitution in Poland and Hungary
  • Jewish Law Students Association, President
  • Louis D. Brandeis National Center for Human Rights, Founder of BLS Chapter
  • Founder of BLS Chapter NYCLA
  • T.A. for Business Management
  • Hillel of Baruch
Skip to content