Attorneys
Partner

Michael Bobick

About


Michael Bobick is a partner at Belkin · Burden · Goldman, LLP and leads the firm’s Loft Law practice.

He represents owners, developers, and investors in complex Loft Law matters, including legalization, compliance, and dispute resolution involving interim multiple dwellings (IMDs). His practice focuses on guiding clients through the full lifecycle of Loft Law issues, from strategic planning and coordination with architects and expediters to representation in proceedings before the New York City Loft Board and related litigation.

Michael regularly advises on overlapping regulatory regimes impacting loft properties, including zoning changes in SoHo and NoHo, coverage and protected occupancy claims, and legalization issues, including Article 7 B compliance. He works with clients to develop legalization strategies tailored to individual buildings and portfolios, with an emphasis on managing risk and preserving asset value.

A former Assistant General Counsel to the New York City Loft Board, Michael brings firsthand knowledge of the agency’s legalization process and decision making framework. In that role, he was actively involved in administering the Loft Law and overseeing how buildings achieve compliance, experience that now informs his advocacy on behalf of property owners.

Michael is a frequent speaker on Loft Law developments and regularly leads firm seminars addressing current issues affecting building owners, including zoning changes, compliance obligations, and strategic considerations for mixed use properties.


Admissions

New York

Honors & Awards

Super Lawyers Rising Stars®, New York Metro Area, Real Estate (2024 – 2026)

Presentations

  • Loft Law Seminar for Owners, Developers and Investors, Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, May 2026

Recent Experience

  • Secured a significant victory in New York County Supreme Court on behalf of a building owner seeking additional time to satisfy Loft Law legalization requirements. The Court annulled a Loft Board determination denying the owner’s extension application, finding that the agency’s two-year delay in issuing a registration number made compliance with statutory deadlines impossible and rendered its decision arbitrary and capricious. The ruling allows the owner to continue the legalization process and pursue rent rights that had been unavailable for years while the building remained out of compliance, underscoring both the legal and financial significance of the decision.

Publications

Sign up for our newsletter, The BBG Update

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required