The AG fined Spigro Management for illegal lockouts. It still needs no license.

On July 24, 2026, the New York Attorney General's office announced a settlement with Spigro Management LLC and its lead property manager over illegal tenant lockouts in buildings across Brooklyn and the Bronx. The firm changed locks without court authorization on at least four occasions. In at least three of those cases, the locked-out residents were relatives of deceased longtime tenants. The penalty: $23,500 in civil fines, roughly $4,800 in statutory damages to four victims, and three years of monitoring. Spigro Management still operates. It still holds no license that New York State could revoke.

What the AG found.

The AG's Housing Protection Unit investigated Spigro Management LLC after documenting the unlawful evictions. Under RPAPL Section 768, changing the locks on a lawful occupant without a court order is an unlawful eviction. In the cases the AG documented, Spigro changed locks on residents who had received no court proceeding, and in the majority of those incidents, on relatives who were living in the apartments after the primary tenant died. The firm manages a portfolio of more than 40 buildings and more than 3,000 units across New York City, including buildings organized as cooperatives and condominiums.

The settlement requires Spigro to pay $23,500 in civil penalties to the State of New York, pay between $1,000 and $1,200 in statutory damages to each of the four documented victims, and operate under a monitoring agreement for three years. Under that agreement, the firm must create and implement an internal lockout policy. The AG's office will verify compliance through 2029. After that, the enforcement file closes.

A $23,500 ceiling.

The $23,500 figure prompts a specific question: what happens next to the managing agent? The short answer is nothing that the law requires. The civil penalties flow from the AG's authority under Executive Law Section 63(12), which authorizes the office to investigate and resolve fraudulent and illegal conduct. That authority is real; the Spigro settlement shows it operates. What it cannot produce is the consequence that follows in licensed industries.

A real estate broker caught committing fraud loses a license. An attorney found to have violated professional rules faces a disciplinary committee. A contractor who repeatedly ignores safety rules can be barred from permitted work. Each of those outcomes requires a licensing body to act on an enforcement finding. For managing agents in New York, there is no licensing body. The AG's settlement is not the start of a disciplinary process. It is the end of one.

Spigro Management LLC operates more than 40 buildings. The $23,500 penalty is a fraction of the management fees the firm collects on that portfolio each year. The three-year monitoring agreement creates a specific obligation, but it applies only to the lockout conduct addressed in the settlement. The firm can continue to take on new management contracts. There is no public registry where a co-op board conducting due diligence could find Spigro's enforcement history. There is no state database of managing-agent disciplinary actions, because no state agency issues managing-agent licenses in New York.

What a license would have changed.

New York Senate Bill S.71, introduced by Senator Brian Kavanagh, would require residential managing agents of cooperatives and condominiums to register with the Secretary of State and obtain certification from an approved credentialing organization. The bill has remained in the Senate Judiciary Committee for nine consecutive legislative sessions without a floor vote. The 2025-2026 session ended June 5, 2026, without action.

If S.71 or an equivalent statute had been in effect before the Spigro settlement, the enforcement sequence would have included steps the current outcome omits. The AG's finding would have triggered a referral to the licensing body. That body would have opened a credential review. A licensing body does not automatically revoke on referral; it opens a process. But the process creates a public record, a hearing, and a decision that applies to the firm's entire licensed practice, not just the conduct named in one settlement. The co-op and condo buildings in Spigro's portfolio would have received formal notice that their managing agent was under license review.

The gap the settlement can't close.

The AG's Housing Protection Unit operates under Executive Law Section 63(12), and that authority was sufficient to reach the lockout conduct at issue in Spigro. What the same statutory framework cannot reach is the managing-agent conduct that affects co-op shareholders and condo unit owners rather than rent-paying tenants. The Martin Act and Real Property Law Article 9-B together give the AG authority over sponsor fraud in offering plans. They do not authorize ongoing oversight of how a managing agent handles a building's reserve fund, maintenance contracts, or board procedures after the offering plan has closed.

A co-op shareholder who believes a managing agent is steering repair contracts to affiliated vendors has no state regulatory body to contact. A condo unit owner who suspects reserve funds are not being segregated from operating funds has no agency to call. The AG's Housing Protection Unit can act when a managing agent changes locks without a court order. It cannot audit how the same firm handles a building's finances. The two enforcement ceilings are related: both trace to the same absence, the license that would give a regulatory body ongoing jurisdiction over the firm's entire practice.

What this means for buildings Spigro manages.

Spigro Management LLC's portfolio of more than 40 buildings includes cooperatives and condominiums. Unit owners in those buildings now have the same information about the July 24 settlement that anyone does: what the AG published. They cannot look up a licensing-body docket, because none exists for managing agents. Their board retains the contractual right to terminate a management agreement, but the decision to act on the settlement is entirely the board's. No regulatory body will prompt that review. No state agency is tracking the outcome.

This is the practical shape of the licensure gap. Licensing does not prevent misconduct. Licensed professionals commit violations. What licensing changes is the response structure: an enforcement finding becomes part of a permanent, searchable professional record and can trigger a practice-wide consequence. In New York, managing agents operate outside that structure. The $23,500 Spigro settlement is a data point in a news cycle. Under a licensing regime, it would open a disciplinary docket that every future client of the firm could read before signing a contract.

Bottom line.

The AG's settlement with Spigro Management LLC shows what the current system was designed to produce: a managing agent was caught committing illegal lockouts, investigated, and penalized. That outcome is real. What the settlement also shows is the ceiling of what the current design allows. Twenty-three thousand dollars. Three years of monitoring. No credential at risk. No public licensing record. No required notice to the co-op and condo boards whose buildings the firm continues to manage. Senate Bill S.71 would change each of those outcomes. The bill has not moved in nine consecutive sessions. A barber who commits a serious violation in New York loses a license. The person managing your co-op or condo building does not, because New York has not required one.

Primary sources: AG press release, July 24, 2026 · RPAPL § 768 · Executive Law § 63(12) · S.71 (2025–2026)

Companion resources: S.71: The managing-agent licensure bill that has never moved · Why the AG can't help with most condo governance disputes · What the AG's rent-stabilization enforcement reveals about the condo gap · All documented regulatory gaps