Clipper Realty Inc.

None.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

CLIPPER REALTY INC.

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints David Bistricer and Sam Levinson his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact (with full power to each of them to act alone), with full power of substitution and re-substitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities to sign any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with the exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection herewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agent, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing required and necessary to be done in and about the foregoing as fully for all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agent or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this Annual Report on Form 10-K has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements and Schedule

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors

Brooklyn, NY

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Clipper Realty Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the related consolidated statements of operations, equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2025, and the related notes and financial statement schedule listed in the accompanying index (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2025 and 2024 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2025, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Emphasis of matter–** Mortgage Note Payable and Related Default**

As disclosed in Note 4, the Company’s principal tenant at its 250 Livingston Street property (“250 Livingston Street”) vacated its leased space in August 2025. Also, during 2025, the Company experienced events of default under the mortgage loan secured by 250 Livingston Street, including failures to remit required deposits and debt service payments, subsequently receiving a notice of default from the lender’s special servicer. The lender may pursue remedies, including acceleration and foreclosure of 250 Livingston Street. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matters

Critical audit matters are matters arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. We determined that there are no critical audit matters.

/s/PKF O’Connor Davies, LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2022.

New York, New York

February 26, 2026

PCAOB ID No. 127

(In thousands, except for share and per share data)

(In thousands, except per share data)

Consolidated Statements of Equity(Deficit)

(In thousands, except for share data)

(In thousands)

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(In thousands, except for share and per share data and as noted)

1. Organization

Clipper Realty Inc. (the “Company” or “We”) was organized in the state of Maryland on July 7, 2015. On August 3, 2015, we completed certain formation transactions and the sale of shares of common stock in a private offering. We contributed the net proceeds of the private offering to Clipper Realty L.P., our operating partnership subsidiary (the “Operating Partnership”), in exchange for units in the Operating Partnership. The Operating Partnership in turn contributed such net proceeds to the limited liability companies (“LLCs”) that comprised the predecessor of the Company in exchange for Class A LLC units in such LLCs and became the managing member of such LLCs. The owners of the LLCs exchanged their interests for Class B LLC units and an equal number of special, non-economic, voting stock in the Company. The Class B LLC units, together with the special voting shares, are convertible into common shares of the Company on a one-for-one basis and are entitled to distributions.

On June 27, 2016, the Operating Partnership acquired the Aspen property located at 1955 First Avenue in Manhattan, New York.

On February 9, 2017, the Company priced an initial public offering of 6,390,149 primary shares of its common stock (including the exercise of the over-allotment option, which closed on March 10, 2017) at a price of $13.50 per share (the “IPO”). The net proceeds of the IPO were approximately $79,000. We contributed the proceeds of the IPO to the Operating Partnership, in exchange for units in the Operating Partnership.

On May 9, 2017, the Company completed the purchase of 107 Columbia Heights (subsequently renovated and rebranded “Clover House”), a 158-unit apartment building located in the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York.

On October 27, 2017, the Company completed the acquisition of an 82-unit residential property at 10 West 65th Street in the Upper West Side neighborhood of Manhattan, New York.

On November 8, 2019, the Company completed the acquisition of 1010 Pacific Street located in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York; the Company redeveloped the property into a 175-unit residential building.

During the period December 2021 through February 2022, the Company purchased the Dean Street property which consists of multiple parcels of land in the Prospect Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York; the Company plans to redevelop the property as a 240-unit residential building with two ground floor retail units.

As of December 31, 2025, the properties owned by the Company consisted of the following (collectively, the “Properties”):

On May 30, 2025, the Company completed the sale of 10 West 65th Street in Manhattan, a 6-story residential building with approximately 76,000 square feet of residential rental GLA. for gross proceeds of $45,500. The Company incurred $1,900 in closing costs and paid $800 in accrued interest at closing. At closing, the Company repaid in full its $31,200 mortgage note (the “Mortgage”) with Flagstar Bank (“Flagstar”) (see note 4 below). The Company recorded a loss on the disposal of long-lived assets of $857 and a loss on impairment of long-lived assets of $33,780 during the year-ended December 31, 2025.

Square footage, leased occupancy percentage and rentable unit disclosures in the consolidated financial statements are unaudited.

During 2019, we entered into a joint venture in which we own a 50% interest through which we are paying certain legal and advisory expenses in connection with various rent laws and ordinances which govern certain of our properties. During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company incurred $787 of such expenses, which was recorded as part of general and administrative in the Consolidated Statements of Operations, and the Company has fulfilled its commitment to the joint venture.

On June 29, 2023 the Company’s Flatbush Gardens property entered into a 40 year regulatory agreement under Article 11 of the Private Housing Finance Law with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“Article 11Agreement”). For the full term of the agreement, Flatbush Gardens received a full exemption from property taxes, committed to maintain rents with existing area median income groups, received eligibility for incremental rental assistance payments under Section 610 of the Private Housing Financing Law for tenants receiving government rental assistance, committed to lease 249 units to formerly homeless families and provide certain services as units become vacant, and committed to pay prevailing wage rates to employees of the property as defined under New York City regulations. The property also committed to a 3-year capital improvements plan. As part of the agreement, a new not-for-profit Corporation, Flatbush Gardens Housing Development Fund Corporation (“HDFC”), became the nominal owner of the Flatbush Gardens properties. This has no effect on the beneficial operations and finances of the properties but provides HDFC with certain consent rights for transfers and financings of the properties. (See Note 7 Commitments and Contingencies).

The operations of Clipper Realty Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries are conducted primarily through the Operating Partnership. The Company has elected to be taxed as a Real Estate Investment Trust (“REIT”) under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). The Company is the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership and the Operating Partnership is the sole managing member of the LLCs that comprised the Predecessor.

At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company’s interest, through the Operating Partnership, in the LLCs that own the properties generally entitles it to 38.0% and 38.0% of the aggregate cash distributions from, and the profits and losses of, the LLCs, respectively.

The Company determined that the Operating Partnership and the LLCs are variable interest entities (“VIEs”) and that the Company was the primary beneficiary. The assets and liabilities of these VIEs represented substantially all of the Company’s assets and liabilities.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

Segments

At December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company hadtwo reportable operating segments, Residential Rental Properties and Commercial Rental Properties. Our Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), represented by our Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, reviews the results in which the revenue and Income from Operations is divided between the commercial and residential performance.

Basis of Consolidation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Company are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”). The effect of all intercompany balances has been eliminated. The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of all entities in which the Company has a controlling interest. The ownership interests of other investors in these entities are recorded as non-controlling interests.

Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of commitments and contingencies at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Management adjusts such estimates when facts and circumstances dictate. The most significant estimates made include the recoverability of accounts receivable, allocation of property purchase price to tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed, the useful lives of long-lived assets, review of long-lived assets for impairment and contingent liabilities. Actual results could materially differ from these estimates.

Investment in Real Estate

Real estate assets held for investment are carried at historical cost and consist of land, buildings and improvements, furniture, fixtures and equipment. Expenditures for ordinary repair and maintenance costs are charged to expense as incurred. Expenditures for improvements, renovations, and replacements of real estate assets are capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful lives if the expenditures qualify as betterments or the life of the related asset will be substantially extended beyond the original life expectancy.

In accordance with ASC 805, "Business Combinations” the Company evaluates each acquisition of real estate or in-substance real estate to determine if the integrated set of assets and activities acquired meets the definition of a business and needs to be accounted for as a business combination. If either of the following criteria is met, the integrated set of assets and activities acquired would not qualify as a business:

An acquired process is considered substantive if:

Generally, the Company expects that acquisitions of real estate or in-substance real estate will not meet the revised definition of a business because substantially all of the fair value is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or group of similar identifiable assets (i.e., land, buildings and related intangible assets) or because the acquisition does not include a substantive process in the form of an acquired workforce or an acquired contract that cannot be replaced without significant cost, effort or delay.

Upon acquisition of real estate, the Company assesses the fair values of acquired tangible and intangible assets including land, buildings, tenant improvements, above-market and below-market leases, in-place leases and any other identified intangible assets and assumed liabilities. The Company allocates the purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in an asset acquisition based on their relative fair values. In estimating fair value of tangible and intangible assets acquired, the Company assesses and considers fair value based on estimated cash flow projections that utilize appropriate discount and capitalization rates, estimates of replacement costs, net of depreciation, and available market information. The fair value of the tangible assets of an acquired property considers the value of the property as if it were vacant.

The Company records acquired above-market and below-market lease values initially based on the present value, using a discount rate which reflects the risks associated with the leases acquired based on the difference between (i) the contractual amounts to be paid pursuant to each in-place lease and (ii) management’s estimate of fair market lease rates for each corresponding in-place lease, measured over a period equal to the remaining term of the lease for above-market leases and the initial term plus the term of any below-market fixed renewal options for the below-market leases. Other intangible assets acquired include amounts for in-place lease values and tenant relationship values (if any) that are based on management’s evaluation of the specific characteristics of each tenant’s lease and the Company’s overall relationship with the respective tenant. Factors to be considered by management in its analysis of in-place lease values include an estimate of carrying costs to execute similar leases. In estimating carrying costs, management includes real estate taxes, insurance and other operating expenses and estimates of lost rentals at market rates during the expected lease-up periods, depending on local market conditions. In estimating costs to execute similar leases, management considers leasing commissions, legal and other related expenses.

The Company reviews long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. A property’s value is impaired if management’s estimate of the aggregate future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest charges) to be generated by the property is less than the carrying value of the property. To the extent impairment has occurred, a write-down is recorded and measured by the amount of difference between the carrying value of the asset and the fair value of the asset. Management of the Company does not believe that any of its properties within the portfolio are impaired as of December 31, 2025. On May 30, 2025, the Company completed the sale of 10 West 65th Street in Manhattan, a 6-story residential building with approximately 76,000 square feet of residential rental GLA for gross proceeds of $45,500. The Company recorded a loss on impairment of long-lived assets of $33,780 in the year ended December 31, 2025 on 10 West 65 th Street, See Note 10.

For long-lived assets to be disposed of, impairment losses are recognized when the fair value of the assets less estimated cost to sell is less than the carrying value of the assets. Properties classified as real estate held-for-sale generally represent properties that are actively marketed or contracted for sale with closing expected to occur within the next twelve months. Real estate held-for-sale is carried at the lower of cost, net of accumulated depreciation, or fair value less cost to sell, determined on an asset-by-asset basis. Expenditures for ordinary repair and maintenance costs on held-for-sale properties are charged to expense as incurred. Expenditures for improvements, renovations and replacements related to held-for-sale properties are capitalized at cost. Depreciation is not recorded on real estate held-for-sale.

If a tenant vacates its space prior to the contractual termination of the lease and no rental payments are being made on the lease, any unamortized balances of the related intangibles are written off. The tenant improvements and origination costs are amortized to expense over the remaining life of the lease (or charged against earnings if the lease is terminated prior to its contractual expiration date).

Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets as follows:

The capitalized above-market lease values are amortized as a reduction to base rental revenue over the remaining terms of the respective leases, and the capitalized below-market lease values are amortized as an increase to base rental revenue over the remaining initial terms plus the terms of any below-market fixed rate renewal options of the respective leases. The value of in-place leases is amortized to expense over the remaining initial terms of the respective leases.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents are defined as cash on hand and in banks, plus all short-term investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased. The Company maintains some of its cash in bank deposit accounts, which, at times, may exceed the federally insured limit. No losses have been experienced related to such accounts.

Restricted Cash

Restricted cash generally consists of escrows for future real estate taxes and insurance expenditures, repairs, capital improvements, loan reserves and security deposits.

Tenant and Other Receivables and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

Tenant and other receivables are comprised of amounts due for monthly rents and other charges less allowance for doubtful accounts. In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC”) 842 "Leases,” the Company performed a detailed review of amounts due from tenants to determine if accounts receivable balances and future lease payments were probable of collection, wrote off receivables not probable of collection and recorded a general reserve against revenues for receivables probable of collection for which a loss can be reasonably estimated. If management determines that the tenant receivable is not probable of collection it is written off against revenues. In addition, the Company records a general reserve under ASC 450.

Deferred Costs

Deferred lease costs consist of fees incurred to initiate and renew operating leases. Lease costs are being amortized using the straight-line method over the terms of the respective leases.

Deferred financing costs represent commitment fees, legal and other third-party costs associated with obtaining financing. These costs are amortized over the term of the financing and are recorded in interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations. Unamortized deferred financing costs are expensed when the associated debt is refinanced or repaid before maturity. Costs incurred in seeking financing transactions which do not close are expensed in the period the financing transaction is terminated.

Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Comprehensive income (loss) is comprised of net income (loss) adjusted for changes in unrealized gains and losses, reported in equity, for financial instruments required to be reported at fair value under GAAP. For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company did not own any financial instruments for which the change in value was not reported in net income (loss); accordingly, its comprehensive income (loss) was its net income (loss) as presented in the consolidated statements of operations.

Revenue Recognition

As mentioned above under Tenant and Other Receivables and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts the Company records lease income under ASC 842,“Leases” which replaces the guidance under ASC 840. ASC 842 applies to the Company principally as lessor; as a lessee, the Company’s leases are immaterial. The Company has determined that all its leases as lessor are operating leases. The Company has elected to not bifurcate lease and non-lease components under a practical expedient provision. With respect to collectability, the Company has written off all receivables not probable of collection and related deferred rent, and has recorded income for those tenants on a cash basis. When the probability assessment has changed for these receivables, the Company has recognized lease income to the extent of the difference between the lease income that would have been recognized if collectability had always been assessed as probable and the lease income recognized to date. For remaining receivables probable of collection, the Company has recorded a general reserve under ASC 450.

For the year ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company charged revenue in the amount of $3,822 and $4,219, respectively, for residential receivables not deemed probable of collection and recognized revenue of $145 and $299, respectively, for a reassessment of collectability of residential receivables previously not deemed probable of collection.

In accordance with the provisions of ASC 842, rental revenue for commercial leases is recognized on a straight-line basis over the terms of the respective leases. Deferred rents receivable represents the amount by which straight-line rental revenue exceeds rents currently billed in accordance with lease agreements. Rental income attributable to residential leases and parking is recognized as earned, which is not materially different from the straight-line basis. Leases entered by residents for apartment units are generally for one-year terms, renewable upon consent of both parties on an annual or monthly basis.

Reimbursements for operating expenses due from tenants pursuant to their lease agreements are recognized as revenue in the period the applicable expenses are incurred. These costs generally include real estate taxes, utilities, insurance, common area maintenance costs and other recoverable costs and are recorded as part of commercial rental income in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Stock-based Compensation

The Company accounts for stock-based compensation pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 718, “Compensation — Stock Compensation.” As such, all equity-based awards are reflected as compensation expense in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations over their vesting period based on the fair value at the date of grant. In the event of a forfeiture, the previously recognized expense for unvested options would be reversed.

The following is a summary of awards granted to the Company’s employees and non-employee directors during the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024.

As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, there was $15,679 and $17,486, respectively, of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested share-based compensation arrangements granted under share incentive plans. As of December 31, 2025, the weighted-average period over which the unrecognized compensation expense will be recorded is approximately four years. For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 the Company incurred $4,266 and $2,701 in LTIP amortization respectively.

As of December 31, 2025, and December 31, 2024, there were 6,156,860 and 5,615,299 long-term incentive plan (“LTIP”) units outstanding, respectively, with a weighted average grant date fair value of $6.84 and $7.06 per unit, respectively.

In March 2025, the Company granted employees and non-employee directors 345,561 and 196,000 LTIP units, respectively, with a weighted-average grant date value of $4.54 per unit. The grants vesting period ranges from up toone year for those granted to the non-employee directors and fromone to 2.5 years to those granted to employees as 2024 bonus and long-term incentive compensation.

In March 2024, the Company granted employees and non-employee directors 320,172 and 181,602 LTIP units, respectively, with a weighted-average grant date value of $4.90 per unit. The grants vesting period range from up toone year for those granted to the non-employee directors and fromone to 2.5 years to those granted to employees as 2023 bonus and long-term incentive compensation.

In December 2024, the Company granted employees and a non-employee director 1,443,947 and 360,987 LTIP units, respectively, with a weighted-average grant date value of $4.46 per unit. The grants vest ratably over a 10-year period and were a special reward related to the completion of certain elements of the Article 11 transaction at the Company’s Flatbush Gardens property.

At the 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of the Company held on June 18, 2025, the stockholders of the Company approved the 2025 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”) and the 2025 Non-Employee Director Plan (the “Non-Employee Director Plan”). The Omnibus Plan replaced the 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan, and the Company ceased granting any new awards under the 2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan. A total of 7,800,000 shares of common stock are reserved for issuance under the 2025 Omnibus Incentive Plan. The Non-Employee Director Plan replaced the 2015 Non-Employee Director Plan, and the Company ceased granting any new awards under the 2015 Non-Employee Director Plan. A total of 3,000,000 shares of common stock are reserved for issuance under the Non-Employee Director Plan.

Transaction Pursuit Costs

Transaction pursuit costs primarily reflect costs incurred for abandoned acquisition, disposition or other transaction pursuits.

Income Taxes

The Company elected to be taxed and to operate in a manner that will allow it to qualify as a REIT under the Code. To qualify as a REIT, the Company is required to distribute dividends equal to at least 90% of the REIT taxable income (computed without regard to the dividends paid deduction and net capital gains) to its stockholders, and meet the various other requirements imposed by the Code relating to matters such as operating results, asset holdings, distribution levels and diversity of stock ownership. Provided the Company qualifies for taxation as a REIT, it is generally not subject to U.S. federal corporate-level income tax on the earnings distributed currently to its stockholders. If the Company fails to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, the Company will be subject to U.S. federal and state income tax on its taxable income at regular corporate tax rates and any applicable alternative minimum tax. In addition, the Company may not be able to re-elect as a REIT for the four subsequent taxable years. The entities comprising the Predecessor are limited liability companies and are treated as pass-through entities for income tax purposes. Accordingly, no provision has been made for federal, state or local income or franchise taxes in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 740, the Company believes that it has appropriate support for the income tax positions taken and, as such, does not have any uncertain tax positions that, if successfully challenged, could result in a material impact on its financial position or results of operations. The prior three years’ income tax returns are subject to review by the Internal Revenue Service.

The Company has determined that the cash distributed to its stockholders is characterized as follows for Federal income tax purposes:

Fair Value Measurements

Refer to Note 6, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments”.

Derivative Financial Instruments

FASB derivative and hedging guidance establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, and for hedging activities. As required by FASB guidance, the Company records all derivatives on the consolidated balance sheets at fair value. The accounting for changes in the fair value of derivatives depends on the intended use of the derivative and the resulting designation.

Derivatives used to hedge the exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset, liability, or firm commitment attributable to a particular risk, such as interest rate risk, are considered fair value hedges. Derivatives used to hedge the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows, or other types of forecast transactions, are considered cash flow hedges. For derivatives designated as fair value hedges, changes in the fair value of the derivative and the hedged item related to the hedged risk are recognized in earnings. For derivatives designated as cash flow hedges, the effective portion of changes in the fair value of the derivative is initially reported in other comprehensive income (loss) (outside of earnings) and subsequently reclassified to earnings when the hedged transaction affects earnings, and the ineffective portion of changes in the fair value of the derivative is recognized directly in earnings. The Company assesses the effectiveness of each hedging relationship by comparing the changes in the fair value or cash flows of the derivative hedging instrument with the changes in the fair value or cash flows of the designated hedged item or transaction. For derivatives not designated as hedges, changes in fair value would be recognized in earnings. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company has no derivatives for which it applies hedge accounting.

Loss Per Share

Basic and diluted net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss attributable to common stockholders by the weighted average common shares outstanding. As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the Company had unvested LTIP units which provide for non-forfeitable rights to dividend-equivalent payments. Accordingly, these unvested LTIP units are considered participating securities and are included in the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share pursuant to the two-class method. The Company didnot have dilutive securities as of December 31, 2025, or 2024.

The effect of the conversion of the 26,317 Class B LLC units outstanding is not reflected in the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share, as the effect would be anti-dilutive. The net loss allocable to such units is reflected as non-controlling interests in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted net loss per share for the periods indicated:

Recently*** Adopted Accounting Standards***

In December 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-09,Income Taxes (Topic 740): Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures (“ASU 2023-09”). ASU 2023-09 requires entities to disclose additional information with respect to the effective tax rate reconciliation and to disclose the disaggregation by jurisdiction of income tax expense and income taxes paid. ASU 2023-09 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, with early adoption permitted. We adopted this update effective December 15, 2025. The adoption of ASU 2023-09 did not have a material impact on our disclosures.

In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU 2024-03,Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income - Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40): Disaggregation of Income Statement Expenses (“ASU 2024-03”), and in January 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2025-01,Income Statement - Reporting Comprehensive Income - Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40): Clarifying the Effective Date ("ASU 2025-01"). ASU 2024-03 requires additional disclosure of the nature of expenses included in the income statement as well as disclosures about specific types of expenses included in the expense captions presented in the income statement. ASU 2024-03, as clarified by ASU 2025-01, is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2027, with early adoption permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact of these standards on our consolidated financial statements.

3. Deferred Costs and Intangible Assets

Deferred costs and intangible assets consist of the following:

Amortization of deferred costs, lease origination costs and in-place lease intangible assets was $101 and $106 for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. Amortization of real estate tax abatements of $481 and $481 for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively, is included in real estate taxes and insurance in the consolidated statements of operations.

Deferred costs and intangible assets as of December 31, 2025, amortize in future years as follows:

4. Notes Payable

The mortgages, loans and mezzanine notes payable collateralized by the properties, or the Company’s interest in the entities that own the properties and assignment of leases, are as follows:

(a) The $329,000 mortgage note agreement with Flagstar Bank N.A. (formerly New York Community Bank (“NYCB”))(“Flagstar”), entered on May 8, 2020, matures on June 1, 2032, and bears interest at 3.125% through May 2027 and thereafter at the prime rate plus 2.75%, subject to an option to fix the rate. The note requires interest-only payments through May 2027, and monthly principal and interest payments thereafter based on a 30-year amortization schedule. The Company has the option to prepay all (but not less than all) of the unpaid balance of the note prior to the maturity date, subject to certain prepayment premiums, as defined.

(b) The $125,000 mortgage note agreement with Citi Real Estate Funding Inc., entered into on May 31, 2019, matures on June 6, 2029, bears interest at 3.63% and requires interest-only payments for the entire term. The Company has the option to prepay all (but not less than all) of the unpaid balance of the note within three months of maturity, without a prepayment premium.

As of August 23, 2025, The City of New York, a municipal corporation acting through the Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("NYC”), vacated the space it occupied at 250 Livingston Street. The lease generally provided for rent payments in the amount of $15.4 million per annum. The Company may be unable to replace NYC as a tenant or unable to replace it with other commercial tenants at comparable rent rates, may incur substantial costs to improve the vacated space or may have to offer significant inducements to fill the space, all of which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

On March 18, 2025, The Company was notified by legal counsel to the servicer for the loan related to the 250 Livingston Street property that, due to the failure of our subsidiary, 250 Livingston Owner LLC, to cause all revenue generated by the 250 Livingston Street property to be deposited into the cash management account as required by the loan agreement related to the $125 million building mortgage loan, an event of default occurred under the $125 million building mortgage loan. The notice provided that if the 250 Livingston Owner LLC fails to cure the event of default, the lender may, among other things, accelerate the $125 million building mortgage loan and demand all amounts owing to the lender to be immediately payable, institute proceedings for the foreclosure of all liens securing the loan and sell the 250 Livingston Street Property, or file a lawsuit against the 250 Livingston owner LLC or the guarantors. As of May 12, 2025, we have complied with the lender’s requirement to have the deposits made by all tenants deposited directly into the cash management account. On May 8, 2025, the Company transferred $6.3 million to the cash management account to cover amounts owed prior to the activation of the cash management account. On May 15, 2025, legal counsel for the lender notified us that they allege that we are in default on the $125 million mortgage loan due to its allegation that the Company, as the guarantor, did not maintain a net worth of not less than $100 million as of December 31, 2024, as required under the loan agreement. The Company replied to the lender disputing such calculation and alleging that the lender did not calculate net worth in a reasonable manner and provided the lender with its own calculation of net worth that shows a net worth in excess of the required amount. On May 28, 2025, the lender replied to the Company concurring with the Company and notifying the Company that they agree that we are compliant with the $100 million requirement. On July 28, 2025, we were notified by legal counsel for the lender that they alleged that the Company was once again in default for failure to remit all revenue derived from 250 Livingston into the cash management account. The Company responded by disputing the allegations in May 8, 2025, letter and noting all rents from the tenants have been deposited into the cash management account.

All amounts remaining in such cash management account after the lender’s allocations set forth in the loan agreement will be disbursed to us if the tenant cure conditions are satisfied under the loan agreement.

If the Company is unable to replace the NYC lease at comparable rents, the Company may not be able to cure the conditions listed in the loan agreement, and it could impact the Company’s available cash to fund corporate operations and pay dividends and distributions to the Company’s stockholders.

On October 6, 2025, the Company failed to make its required deposit to the cash management account to fund the interest and tax escrow deposit for September 2025. The Company received notices of nonpayment on October 20, 2025, and November 12, 2025. The loan documents state that a failure to pay interest within five days of due date is an event of default. On November 12, 2025, the Company sent a letter to Midland requesting that the loan be immediately fully transferred to Special Servicing for potential loan modifications because the Borrower does not plan to continue to support the ongoing operating and debt service shortfall related to 250 Livingston Street property. Although the Company is in the process of negotiating a Consent and Cooperation Agreement for the sale of the property, there can be no assurance that such Consent and Cooperation Agreement will be consummated.

On December 18, 2025, the Company received a letter from the Special Servicer notifying the Company that it is in default under the Note and other Loan documents by virtue of, among other things, its failure to pay all amounts when due thereunder. The notice indicated that the Lender would take all such actions as it deems appropriate to protect its interest in the Loan and to collect the debt thereunder including, without limitation, seeking foreclosure and/or reconveyance of its security under the Loan documents. In accordance with the Loan documents, the Company is subject to default interest at a rate of additional 5% per annum. The Company believes that, as of December 31, 2025, the Company owed approximately $3,643 in interest and default interest. There is no assurance that the Lender would not impose penalties or any other obligations on the Borrower in connection with this event of default.

On January 7, 2026, the Borrower received a letter from counsel for the Lender and the special servicer for the Lender, notifying the Borrower that it is in default under the Loan Agreement, the Note and other loan documents by virtue of, among other things, its failure to pay all amounts when due thereunder from October 6, 2025 through and including January 6, 2026. The letter indicated that the Lender’s counsel would assist the Lender in taking all such actions as it deems appropriate to protect its interest in the Loan and to collect the debt thereunder including, without limitation, seeking foreclosure and/or reconveyance of its security under the loan documents.

As previously disclosed, the Company is in the process of negotiating a Consent and Cooperation Agreement with the Lender for the sale of the Property, but there can be no assurance that such Consent and Cooperation Agreement will be consummated.

(c) The $100,000 mortgage note agreement with Citi Real Estate Funding Inc., entered into on February 18, 2021 matures on March 6, 2031, bears interest at 3.21% and requires interest-only payments for the entire term. The Company has the option to prepay all (but not less than all) of the unpaid balance of the note within three months of maturity, without a prepayment premium.

The 141 Livingston Street lease expired on December 27, 2025. The Company and City of New York are continuing to work through the finalizing of a previously agreed five-year extension of its expired lease. There can be no assurance that the negotiations will conclude with an agreement. The expired lease at 141 Livingston Street provided for $10,300 in rent per annum. The City of New York continues to occupy the space and is paying holdover rent in accordance with the terms of the expired lease. Those payments are the same as those in final term of the expired lease.

If we are unable to finalize the agreement, we would be at risk of not being able to replace NYC as a tenant, leasing the space below the current rates, incurring costs to improve the space or offer other inducements to fill the space, all of which may have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

On October 28, 2024, we received notice that, as of October 7, 2024, the servicing of the mortgage notes was transferred to a special servicer (the "Special Servicer”) due to our alleged failure to make certain required payments under the loan agreement, including, but not limited to, the reserve deposit starting on July 7, 2024. The Special Servicer demanded that we pay (i) $2,200 of reserve payments into a reserve account immediately (for July-October 2024) and continued monthly payments of $556 for an additional 14 months, (ii) $1,200 of default interest and late charges through October 7, 2024, and (iii) an additional $10 per diem interest for each day thereafter.

On November 11, 2024, the Special Servicer notified the Borrower that, due to its alleged event of default under the Loan Agreement, as a result of the failure to make the payments described above, the mortgage notes have been accelerated, and all amounts under the loan agreement were due and payable. Such amounts included, but were not limited to, $100,000 principal amount of the mortgage notes, approximately $5,000 of default yield maintenance premium, $10,000 aggregate reserve deposit, and the above-described penalty default interest and penalties.

We believe that (i) we have made timely payments under the loan agreement, (ii) the servicer and the Special Servicer have misinterpreted the terms of the loan agreement requiring monthly reserve payments beginning on July 7, 2024, (iii) we have no current obligation to make such reserve payments under the loan agreement and (iv) we should not be obligated to pay the default interest and late charges.

On December 18, 2024, we received notice from the Special Servicer that due to its allegation that we as the Guarantor did not maintain a net worth of not less than $100 million as of December 31, 2022 and 2023, respectively, as required under the loan agreement, we were in default on the loan. We replied to the Special Servicer disputing such calculation and alleging that the Special Servicer did not calculate net worth in a reasonable manner. We provided the Special Servicer with our own calculation of net worth that shows a net worth in excess of the required amount.

On January 21, 2025, we received notice from the Special Servicer alleging that certain elements of our insurance on the building at 141 Livingston Street were not in compliance with the loan agreement requirements, including, but not limited to, due to a deductible in excess of what is permitted under the terms of the loan agreement and the use of an insurance carrier with a rating agency rating below that which is permitted under the terms of the loan agreement.

On March 12, 2025, we received a letter from counsel to the successor to the special servicer reaffirming the occurrence of alleged events of default under the loan agreement described above and demanding the establishment of a restricted account, a cash management account and a debt service account. In addition, the letter demanded that tenants of 141 Livingston Street be sent notices directing them to make lease payments to the cash management account.

We believe that we are not required to establish the foregoing accounts or send such notices to the tenants. However, if we are required to establish such accounts and deliver such notices, it could impact our available cash to fund corporate operations and pay dividends and distributions to our stockholders.

On March 20, 2025, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for the benefit of the registered holders of certain pass-through certificates issued by trusts that are the holders of the promissory mortgage notes secured by the 141 Livingston Street property, referred to as "Plaintiff,” filed a lawsuit against the Borrower, as well as us and our Operating Partnership subsidiary, as guarantors, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Plaintiff demands, among other things, that (i) the 141 Livingston Street property be sold and the Plaintiff be paid the amounts due under the loan agreement, with interest thereon to the time of such payment, together with, among other items, the expenses of the sale, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees; (ii) Plaintiff be paid all rents and revenues of the 141 Livingston Street property as they become due and payable; (iii) a receiver be appointed to manage the 141 Livingston Street property, with power among other things to demand and recover payment from anyone who has received a distribution from 141 Borrower after any event of default; (iv) Plaintiff have such other and further relief as may be just and equitable; (v) guarantors pay to Plaintiff the amount of any losses or damages suffered or incurred by Plaintiff as the court may determine to be just and equitable and amounts owed under the guaranty. We believe that the claims set forth in this complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On April 7, 2025, we filed an Affirmation in opposition to the motion of the Plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver and in support of defendants cross motion to dismiss the action and cancel notice of pendency with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings. A hearing on the motions was scheduled for April 8, 2025, but it was adjourned until May 6, 2025. The Plaintiff submitted additional filings on April 29, 2025, and we submitted our replies on May 6, 2025. On May 13, 2025, the Court denied (i) the Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a receiver to manage the 141 Livingston Street property, "as Plaintiff’s likelihood of ultimately prevailing on its claims herein appears remote” and (ii) the Company’s cross motion to dismiss the lawsuit, "as Plaintiff’s contentions do raise a question of fact”. In April 2025, we and the NYC agreed to the terms of a five-year extension of the expired lease, with an option for the NYC to terminate the lease after two years with a prior six month notice. NYC has sent the lease to us to sign. On April 22, 2025, we sent the lease to the loan special servicer for approval in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement. On May 21, 2025 the special servicer approved the lease subject to certain conditions. We rejected the conditions that amongst other changes required us to change the terms of the cancellation provisions in the lease and make amendments to the loan documents to be in line with the lenders allegations in the above lawsuit. There can be no assurance that the lease will be approved or finalized. On June 11, 2025, the lender filed an appeal of the denial of the receiver. On June 23, 2025, the Lender filed an amended complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that its conditions for its consent to the lease were reasonable. On July 2, 2025, the lender filed a renewed motion for a temporary receiver. On July 11, 2025, the Company filed an answer with counterclaims, seeking among other things declaratory relief that the lenders conditions are unreasonable for the proposed lease renewal. On July 18, 2025, we filed opposition to the renewed receiver motion. On July 30, 2025, the judge heard arguments on the renewed motion for a temporary receiver. On July 31, 2025, the lender filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims. The Company filed opposition on September 30, 2025, and the motion was scheduled for hearing on December 16, 2025. On September 30, 2025, the court denied the Plaintiff’s renewed motion for a receiver. The court ruled, however, that if the City of New York exercises its option to terminate early under the proposed lease extension, the Company will be required to pay $2,000 on the first day of each month thereafter until a total of $10,000 has been accumulated. Under this decision and order, failure of the Company to fund the reserve fund at that time would be grounds for the Lender to submit an order appointing a receiver to the court of endorsement. On October 28, 2025, the lender filed a notice of appeal of the court’s decision. On October 28, 2025, the lender filed a notice of appeal of the court’s decision. On October 27, 2025, the Civil Appeals Management Program("CAMP”) of the Appellate Division, Second Department New York State Court of Appeals conducted a mandatory conference in which the Company and the Plaintiff participated to attempt to reach a settlement of the pending litigation. Another settlement conference took place on November 13, 2025.

On December 24, 2025, the Company entered into the Loan Modification Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for the benefit of the registered holders of certain commercial mortgage pass-through certificates related to the Loan (collectively, the “Lender”), to settle the ongoing litigation between the Lender, the Borrower, the Company and the Operating Partnership. The Agreement became effective on December 30, 2025. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company provided a $10,000 renewal tenant reserve account letter of credit and paid fees of approximately $2,200 to the special servicer and to counsel to the Lender, the Lender waived its claimed late charges and default interest, agreed to dismiss with prejudice the pending foreclosure actions, and approved the previously submitted five-year lease extension with the Property’s New York City tenant effective December 28, 2025.

(d) The $360,000 loan with Deutsche Bank, entered into on February 21, 2018, matures on March 6, 2028, bears interest at 4.506% and requires interest-only payments for the entire term. The Company has the option to prepay all (but not less than all) of the unpaid balance of the loan prior to the maturity date, subject to a prepayment premium if it occurs prior to December 6, 2027.

(e) The $57.733 mortgage note agreement with Capital One Multifamily Finance LLC matures on July 1, 2028, and bears interest at 3.68%. The note required interest-only payments through July 2017, and monthly principal and interest payments of $321 thereafter based on a 30-year amortization schedule. The Company has the option to prepay the note prior to the maturity date, subject to a prepayment premium.

(f) The $82,000 mortgage note agreement with MetLife Investment Management, entered into on November 8, 2019, matures on December 1, 2029, bears interest at 3.53% and requires interest-only payments for the entire term. The Company has the option, commencing on January 1, 2024, to prepay the note prior to the maturity date, subject to a prepayment premium if it occurs prior to September 2, 2029.

(g) On May 30, 2025, in connection with the Sale of the 10 West 65 street property, the Company repaid in full the $31.200 million 2017 acquisition mortgage note (the “Mortgage”) to Flagstar Bank (“Flagstar”). In addition to the Mortgage repayment, the Company paid $0.8 million in accrued interest through the payoff date. Upon repayment of the Mortgage, Flagstar released $1.1 million in previously deposited property tax escrow and other debt reserves to the Company. The Company did not incur any penalties related to the prepayment of the Mortgage.

(h) On August 10, 2021, the Company entered into a group of loans with AIG Asset Management (U.S.), LLC, succeeding a property acquisition loan, providing for maximum borrowings of $52,500 to develop the property. The notes had a 36-month term, bore interest at 30 day LIBOR plus 3.60% (with a floor of 4.1%). The notes were scheduled to mature on September 1, 2024 and could have been extended until September 1, 2026. The Company could have prepaid the unpaid balance of the note within five months of maturity without penalty.

On February 9, 2023, the Company refinanced this construction loan with a mortgage loan with Valley National Bank which provided for maximum borrowings of $80,000. The loan provided initial funding of $60,000 and a further $20,000 subject to achievement of certain financial targets. The loan has a term offive years and an initial annual interest rate of 5.7% subject to reduction by up to 25 basis points upon achievement of certain financial targets (during the quarter ended June 30, 2023, the Company achieved the applicable financial target, and the interest rate was reduced to 5.55%). The interest rate on subsequent fundings will be fixed at the time of any funding. The loan requires interest-only payments for the firsttwo years and principal and interest thereafter based on a 30-year amortization schedule. The Company has the option to prepay in full, or in part, the unpaid balance of the note prior to the maturity date. Prior to the second anniversary of the date of the note prepayment is subject to certain prepayment premiums, as defined. After the second anniversary of the date of the note the prepayment is not subject to a prepayment premium.

On September 15, 2023, the Company borrowed an additional $20,000 from Valley National Bank (“Valley”). The additional borrowing has a term of twenty-four months and an annual interest rate of 6.37%. The loan is interest only subject to the maintenance of certain financial targets after the first 16 months of the term. In conjunction with the additional borrowing, the Company and the bank agreed to amend the expiration date of the initial $60,000 to expire at the same time as the additional borrowing. No change was made to the interest rate on the initial borrowing.

On October 1, 2025, the Company entered into a Loan Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with Citi Real Estate Funding Inc., a New York corporation, and Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., a national banking association, as the lenders, dated as of October 1, 2025.

The Loan Agreement provides for the $84,500 million loan to the Company (the “Loan”). The Loan has a maturity date of October 6, 2030 and bears interest at a 5.73% rate per annum. The Loan is secured by the residential rental property located at 1010 Pacific Street, Brooklyn, New York (the “Property”).

On October 1, 2025, concurrently with entering into the Loan Agreement, the Company repaid the $80,000 mortgage loan with Valley and terminated its loan agreement with Valley. In connection with this refinancing, the Company paid Valley approximately $80,400 of principal and accrued interest outstanding under its prior loan agreement.

The Company incurred no fees or costs as a result of the termination of its loan with Valley, the Company incurred approximately $1,700 in closing costs and prepaid interest and set aside approximately $200 is escrow accounts for property taxes, property insurance and rent reserves under the Loan Agreement. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $2,100 from this refinancing at the time of closing.

(i) On December 22, 2021, the Company entered into a $30,000 mortgage note agreement with Bank Leumi, N.A related to the Dean Street acquisition. The note’s original maturity was December 22, 2022 and was subsequently extended to September 22, 2023. The note required interest-only payments and bears interest at the prime rate (with a floor of 3.25%) plus 1.60%. In April 2022, the Company borrowed an additional $6,985 under the mortgage note in connection with the acquisition of additional parcels of land in February and April 2022.

On August 10, 2023, the Company refinanced its $37,000 mortgage on its Dean Street development with a senior construction loan (“Senior Loan”) with Valley National Bank that permits borrowings up to $115,000 and a mezzanine loan (the “Mezzanine Loan”) with BADF 953 Dean Street Lender LLC that permits borrowings up to $8,000.

The Senior Loan allows maximum borrowings of $115,000 for a 30-month term, hastwo 6-month extension options, and bears interest at 1-Month Term SOFR plus 4.00%, with an all-in floor of 5.50%. The Senior Loan consists of a land loan, funded at closing to refinance the existing loan totaling $36,985, a construction loan of up to $62,400 and a project loan of up to $15,600. The Company has provided a 30% payment guarantee of outstanding borrowings among other standard indemnities.

The Mezzanine Loan allows maximum borrowings of $8,000 for a 30-month term, havetwo 6-month extension options, and bears interest at 1-Month Term SOFR plus 10%, with an all-in floor of 13%. Interest shall accrue on the principal, is compounded monthly and is due at the end of the term of the loan. At closing, $4,500 was funded to cover closing costs incurred on the construction loans and the remaining $3,500 was drawn for ongoing construction costs.

On May 2, 2025, the Company entered into the Multifamily Loan and Security Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”), dated as of May 2, 2025 and the Mezzanine Multifamily Loan and Security Agreement (the “Mezzanine Loan Agreement” and together with the Loan Agreement, the “New Loan Agreements”) with MF1 Capital, a company not affiliated with the Company dated as of May 2, 2025.

The Loan Agreement provides for $115,000 and the Mezzanine Loan Agreement provides for the $26,750 loan to Dean Member (collectively, the “Loans”). The Loans have an initial May 9, 2027 maturity date, with three one-year extensions available upon meeting the applicable extension conditions, and bear interest at 2.65% rate, plus 1-Month CME Term SOFR (with a floor of 2.25%) (6.80% at September 30, 2025). The Company can borrow up to an additional $18,250 under the Mezzanine Loan Agreement based on meeting various performance targets over the term of the loan. Under the Loan Agreement, the Company deposited with MF1 Capital (i) $4,250 for a shortfall reserve account to pay interest and operating expenses during the initial lease up period of the Dean Street Property, and (ii) $1,550 for completion reserve deposits towards the completion of the construction of the building.

Subsequent to the loan closing the Company drew an additional $6,250 from the Mezzanine Loan.

The New Loan Agreements also contain customary representations, covenants, events of default and certain limited guarantees.

In addition, the Company purchased an interest rate cap with US Bank that caps the SOFR portion of the interest rate on the Loans at 6%.

Concurrently with entering into the New Loan Agreements, the Company repaid the $115,000 Senior Loan and the $8,000 Mezzanine Loan, plus $2,900 in accrued interest. The Company incurred no fees or costs as a result of the termination of the Prior Loan Agreements, and the Company incurred approximately $3,104 in closing costs for the New Loan Agreements.

On April 30, 2025, the Company entered into a $10,000 corporate line of credit with Valley National Bank. The line of credit bears interest of Prime +4.0%. On May 1, 2025, the Company drew $5,000 from the line of credit. On May 2, 2025 the Company repaid the balance with proceeds from the Loans.

On December 24, 2025 the Company issued a $10,000 letter of credit to lenders of the Company’s 141 Livingston Street property.

The Company has provided a limited guaranty for the mortgage notes at several of its properties. The Company’s loan agreements contain customary representations, covenants and events of default. Certain loan agreements require the Company to comply with affirmative and negative covenants, including the maintenance of debt service coverage and debt yield ratios. In the event that the Company is not compliant, certain lenders may require cash sweeps of rent until the conditions are cured. Except as described above, the Company is not in default on any of its loan agreements.

The following table summarizes principal payment requirements under the terms of the mortgage notes as of December 31, 2025:

5. Rental Income under Operating Leases

The Company’s commercial properties are leased to commercial tenants under operating leases with fixed terms of varying lengths. As of December 31, 2025, the minimum future cash rents receivable (excluding tenant reimbursements for operating expenses) under non-cancelable operating leases for the commercial tenants in each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows:

The Company has commercial leases with the City of New York that comprised approximately 18% and 22% of total revenues for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. As of December 31, 2025, Kings County Court, the Human Resources Administration, and the Department of Environmental Protection, all of which are agencies of the City of New York, occupied all 206,084 of rentable square feet at 141 Livingston Street and terminated its lease and vacated all 342,496 rentable square feet of commercial space at our 250 Livingston Street. The commercial rental space at 141 Livingston is occupied subject to hold-over rent provisions in the lease that expired on December 27, 2025.

6. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

GAAP requires the measurement of certain financial instruments at fair value on a recurring basis. In addition, GAAP requires the measure of other financial instruments and balances at fair value on a non-recurring basis (e.g., carrying value of impaired real estate and long-lived assets). Fair value is defined as the price that would be received upon the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The GAAP fair value framework uses a three-tiered approach. Fair value measurements are classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:

When available, the Company utilizes quoted market prices from an independent third-party source to determine fair value and classifies such items in Level 1 or Level 2. In instances where the market for a financial instrument is not active, regardless of the availability of a nonbinding quoted market price, observable inputs might not be relevant and could require the Company to make a significant adjustment to derive a fair value measurement. Additionally, in an inactive market, a market price quoted from an independent third party may rely more on models with inputs based on information available only to that independent third party. When the Company determines the market for a financial instrument owned by the Company to be illiquid or when market transactions for similar instruments do not appear orderly, the Company uses several valuation sources (including internal valuations, discounted cash flow analysis and quoted market prices) and establishes a fair value by assigning weights to the various valuation sources.

Changes in assumptions or estimation methodologies can have a material effect on these estimated fair values. In this regard, the derived fair value estimates cannot be substantiated by comparison to independent markets and, in many cases, may not be realized in an immediate settlement of the instrument.

The financial assets and liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets include cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, receivables, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, security deposits and notes payable. The carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, receivables, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, and security deposits reported in the consolidated balance sheets approximates fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments. The fair value of notes payable, which are classified as Level 2, is estimated by discounting the contractual cash flows of each debt instrument to their present value using adjusted market interest rates.

The carrying amount and estimated fair value of the notes payable are as follows:

The above disclosures regarding fair value of financial instruments are based on pertinent information available as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. Although the Company is not aware of any factors that would significantly affect the reasonableness of the estimated fair value amounts, such ‐amounts have not been comprehensively revalued for purposes of these financial statements since those dates, and current estimates of fair value may differ significantly from the amounts presented herein.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal

On July 3, 2017, the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “Court”) ruled in favor of 41 present or former tenants of apartment units at the Company’s buildings located at 50 Murray Street and 53 Park Place in Manhattan, New York (the Tribeca House property), who brought an action (the “Kuzmich” case) against the Company alleging that they were subject to applicable rent stabilization laws with the result that rental payments charged by the Company exceeded amounts permitted under these laws because the buildings were receiving certain tax abatements under Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”) 421-g. The Court also awarded the plaintiffs- tenants their attorney’s fees and costs. After various court proceedings and discussions from 2018-2022, on March 4, 2022 the court issued a ruling, finalized on May 9, 2022, on the rent overcharges to which the plaintiffs are entitled. While the court ruled that the overcharges to which the plaintiffs are entitled total $1.2 million, the court agreed with the Company’s legal arguments that rendered the overcharge liability lower than it could have been, and therefore the Company did not appeal the ruling. On June 23, 2022, the court ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees incurred through February 28, 2022, in the amount of $0.4 million. The only remaining outstanding issues of which the Company is aware relate to the proper form of rent-stabilized renewal leases for the six plaintiffs who remain as tenants in the building. The parties are seeking judicial intervention to resolve this remaining issue. On July 17, 2023, a hearing was held at which the Judicial Hearing Officer (“JHO”) determined five (5) of the tenant’s lease renewal amounts, term and form. The amount of the lease renewal concerning the sixth plaintiff was made on August 28, 2023. At this time the Company is awaiting the execution and return of all the lease renewals. On June 14, 2024, the Court amended its August 28, 2023 decision, holding that no renewal lease had been entered into by one of the remaining tenants (Navascues) who claimed to have entered into a renewal lease at a preferential rent. On July 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the June 14, 2024 decision. On August 13, 2024, the JHO issued a Determination awarding attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ attorneys in the amount of $13 for the Kuzmich matter. On December 31, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the August 13, 2024 JHO determination. The Company is preparing to comply with the JHO’s Determinations regarding renewal leases, overcharge payments and payment of attorneys fees. The matter is currently pending.

On November 18, 2019, the same law firm which filed the Kuzmich case filed a second action involving a separate group of 26 tenants (captioned Crowe et al v 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC, Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 161227/19), which action advances essentially the same claims as in Kuzmich. The Company’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in Crowe had been extended to June 30, 2020; on such date, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. Pursuant to the court’s rules, on July 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint; the sole difference as compared to the initial complaint is that seven new plaintiffs-tenants were added to the caption; there were no substantive changes to the complaint’s allegations. On August 5, 2020, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint. The case was placed on the court’s calendar and was next scheduled for a discovery conference on November 16, 2022. Counsel for the parties have been engaged in and are continuing settlement discussions. On November 16, 2022, the court held a compliance conference and ordered the plaintiffs to provide rent overcharge calculations in response to proposed calculations previously provided by the Company. On July 12, 2023, the court referred this matter to a JHO to determine the outstanding issues. A hearing before the JHO was held in September 2023. On September 19, 2024 the JHO entered two orders, (1) a June 5, 2024 Determination determining the amount of rent overcharges, if any, due to each of the plaintiffs and the lease renewal amounts, term and form of lease for the plaintiffs remaining in occupancy of four units and (2) a September 3, 2024 Determination sustaining the June 5, 2024 JHO determination which set another plaintiffs rent but reducing the overcharge amount owed to the plaintiff. On October 21, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the September 3, 2024 JHO order. In addition, on August 13, 2024 the JHO issued a Determination awarding attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ attorneys in the amount of $63 for the Crowe matter. This Determination was entered on November 25, 2024. On December 31, 2024, the Company moved to appeal from the August 13, 2024 JHO determination. The Company is preparing to comply with the JHO’s determinations. The matter is currently pending.

On March 9, 2021, the same law firm which filed the Kuzmich and Crowe cases filed a third action involving another tenant (captioned Horn v 50Murray Street Acquisition LLC, Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 152415/21), which action advances the same claims as in Kuzmich and Crowe. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on May 21, 2021. On September 19, 2024 the JHO entered a June 5, 2024 order which determined, among other things, the amount of rent overcharge, the lease renewal amount, term and form of lease for plaintiff Horn. In addition, On August 13, 2024 the JHO issued a Determination awarding attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs’ attorneys in the amount of $18 for the Horn matter. This Determination was entered on November 25, 2024. On December 31, 2024, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the August 13, 2024 JHO determination.

As a result of the March 4 and May 9, 2022 decisions which established the probability and ability to reasonably compute amounts owed to tenants for all the cases, the Company recorded a charge for litigation settlement and other of $2.7 million in the consolidated statements of operations during the year ended December 31, 2021 comprising rent overcharges, interest and legal costs of plaintiff’s counsel. The Company paid $2.3 million to the plaintiffs related to the Kuzmich case during the year ended December 31, 2022 and $0.4 million related to the Crowe case during the year ended December 31, 2023.

Based on the JHO determinations made in 2024, the Company accrued an additional $175 for the plaintiffs and $94 for attorney fees.

In addition to the above, the Company is subject to certain legal proceedings and claims arising in connection with its business. Management believes, based in part upon consultation with legal counsel, that the ultimate resolution of all such claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

On October 15, 2021, Rodney Sanchez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint (the “Complaint”) against and the Company and certain of its affiliates and Clipper Equity LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiff alleged that he was jointly employed by the Defendants and that the Defendants: (a) failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”); (b) failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for training sessions in violation of the FLSA and NYLL; (c) failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees on a timely basis in violation of NYLL; and (d) failed to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with wage statements and wage notices as required by NYLL. The Company has denied the allegations and intends to defend both the allegations and the class certification action. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action and therefore no accrual has been made related to this.

The Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (“OAG”) commenced an investigation concerning the conduct of screening of tenant applicants in the building portfolio in which Clipper Equity and its principals have a management and/or ownership interest. Clipper Equity cooperated with the investigation and, in April 2022, entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance with the OAG to resolve the investigation on behalf of itself and its affiliates, the terms of which have no impact to the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

On November 22, 2024, The New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services issued the results of its audit of the Company’s operating expense escalation charges for the period of June 2014 to December 2018. The audit resulted in a claim by the City for the Company to pay the City $1,152. The Company is evaluating the results of the audit. During the year ended December 31, 2025, New York City withheld rent to satisfy the claim. Based on the results of the audit the Company was adequately reserved to cover this payment and it did not have any impact on the Company’s operating results the year ended December 31, 2025.

On March 20, 2025, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for the benefit of the registered holders of certain pass-through certificates issued by trusts that are the holders of the promissory mortgage notes secured by the 141 Livingston Street property, referred to as "Plaintiff,” filed a lawsuit against the Borrower, as well as us and our Operating Partnership subsidiary, as guarantors, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Plaintiff demands, among other things, that (i) the 141 Livingston Street property be sold and the Plaintiff be paid the amounts due under the loan agreement, with interest thereon to the time of such payment, together with, among other items, the expenses of the sale, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees; (ii) Plaintiff be paid all rents and revenues of the 141 Livingston Street property as they become due and payable; (iii) a receiver be appointed to manage the 141 Livingston Street property, with power among other things to demand and recover payment from anyone who has received a distribution from 141 Borrower after any event of default; (iv) Plaintiff have such other and further relief as may be just and equitable; (v) guarantors pay to Plaintiff the amount of any losses or damages suffered or incurred by Plaintiff as the court may determine to be just and equitable and amounts owed under the guaranty. We believe that the claims set forth in this complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On April 7, 2025, we filed an Affirmation in opposition to the motion of the Plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver and in support of defendants cross motion to dismiss the action and cancel notice of pendency with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings. A hearing on the motions was scheduled for April 8, 2025, but it was adjourned until May 6, 2025. The Plaintiff submitted additional filings on April 29, 2025, and we submitted our replies on May 6, 2025. On May 13, 2025, the Court denied (i) the Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a receiver to manage the 141 Livingston Street property, "as Plaintiff’s likelihood of ultimately prevailing on its claims herein appears remote” and (ii) the Company’s cross motion to dismiss the lawsuit, "as Plaintiff’s contentions do raise a question of fact”.

In April 2025, we and the NYC agreed to the terms of a five-year extension of the then current lease, with an option for the NYC to terminate the then lease after two years with a prior six month notice. NYC has sent the lease to us to sign. On April 22, 2025, we sent the lease to the loan special servicer for approval in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement. On May 21, 2025 the special servicer approved the lease subject to certain conditions. We rejected the conditions that amongst other changes required us to change the terms of the cancellation provisions in the lease and make amendments to the loan documents to be in line with the lenders allegations in the above lawsuit. There can be no assurance that the lease will be approved or finalized.

On June 11, 2025, the lender filed an appeal of the denial of the receiver. On June 23, 2025, the Lender filed an amended complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that its conditions for its consent to the lease were reasonable. On July 2, 2025, the lender filed a renewed motion for a temporary receiver. On July 11, 2025, the Company filed an answer with counterclaims, seeking among other things declaratory relief that the lenders conditions are unreasonable for the proposed lease renewal. On July 18, 2025, we filed opposition to the renewed receiver motion. On July 30, 2025, the judge heard arguments on the renewed motion for a temporary receiver. On July 31, 2025, the lender filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s counterclaims. The Company filed opposition on September 30, 2025, and the motion was scheduled for hearing on December 16, 2025.

On September 30, 2025, the court denied the Plaintiff’s renewed motion for a receiver. The court ruled, however, that if the City of New York exercises its option to terminate early under the proposed lease extension, the Company will be required to pay $2,000 on the first day of each month thereafter until a total of $10,000 has been accumulated. Under this decision and order, failure of the Company to fund the reserve fund at that time would be grounds for the Lender to submit an order appointing a receiver to the court of endorsement. On October 28, 2025, the lender filed a notice of appeal of the court’s decision. On October 27, 2025, the Civil Appeals Management Program("CAMP”) of the Appellate Division, Second Department New York State Court of Appeals conducted a mandatory conference in which the Company and the Plaintiff participated to attempt to reach a settlement of the pending litigation. Another settlement conference took place on November 13, 2025.

On December 24, 2025, the Company entered into the Loan Modification Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for the benefit of the registered holders of certain commercial mortgage pass-through certificates related to the Loan (collectively, the “Lender”), to settle the ongoing litigation between the Lender, the Borrower, the Company and the Operating Partnership. The Agreement became effective on December 30, 2025. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Company provided a $10 million renewal tenant reserve account letter of credit and paid fees of approximately $2.2 million to the special servicer and to counsel to the Lender, the Lender waived its claimed late charges and default interest, agreed to dismiss with prejudice the pending foreclosure actions, and approved the previously submitted five-year lease extension with the Property’s New York City tenant effective December 28, 2025.

Commitments

On June 29, 2023 the Company entered into the Article 11 Agreement. Under the Article 11 agreement, the Company has entered into a Housing Repair and Maintenance Letter Agreement (“HRMLA”) in which the Company has agreed to perform certain capital improvements to Flatbush Gardens over the next three years. The current estimate is that the costs of that work will be an amount of up to $27 million. The Company expects those costs to be offset by the savings provided by property tax exemption and enhanced payments for tenants receiving government assistance (See note 1). Through December 31, 2025, the Company incurred approximately $21,000 on capital improvements required under the HRMLA.

On December 24, 2025, the Company issued aa $10,000 irrevocable standby letter of credit with Valley National Bank, NA, to the benefit of Midland Loan Services as Master Servicer for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee, to settle the litigation related to our 141 Livingston property (see footnote 7 above). The letter of credit expires on December 24, 2026, but will be automatically extended annually for a one-year period until April 7, 2032, the date of the mortgage loan expiration on 141 Livingston Street.). Midland Loan Services may draw on the loan in accordance with the Loan Modification Agreement described above.

Concentrations

The Company’s properties are located in the Boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn in New York City, which exposes the Company to greater economic risks than if it owned a more geographically dispersed portfolio.

The breakdown between commercial and residential revenue is as follows (unaudited):

8. Related-Party Transactions

The Company recorded office and overhead expenses pertaining to a related company in general and administrative expense of $238 and $308 for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024 respectively. The Company recognized a charge/(credit) to reimbursable payroll expense pertaining to a related company in general and administrative expense of $(124) and $(24) for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024,

On October 10, 2024, the Company guaranteed an agreement between the Company's subsidiary, 250 Livingston Owner LLC, and Iron Hound Management Company LLC (“Iron Hound”), whose principal is the Company's director Roberto Verrone, to provide consulting services regarding the loan related to the 250 Livingston Street property. The initial fee paid upon the agreement is $125 and the agreement also includes restructuring and other fees payable upon certain loan modifications. The arrangement was approved by an independent committee of the Company’s board of directors.

141 Livingston Owner LLC, engaged Ironhound to assist in negotiating a settlement to its litigation related to mortgage loan, see Note 7 above. After year-end the Company paid Ironhound $500 for its services, The payment was accrued and is included in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2025. The arrangement was approved by an independent committee of the Company’s board of directors.

During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Company engaged Greenberg Traurig, in which the Company's director Robert Ivanhoe is a senior partner, regarding the loan to 141 Livingston Street, for a fee of approximately $15.

9. Segment Reporting

The Company is a New York City real estate investment trust that is focused on developing, redeveloping and operating properties in the commercial and residential space.

Our Chief Operating Decision Maker (“CODM”), represented by our Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, reviews the results in which the revenue and Income from Operations is divided between the commercial and residential performance. This metric enables the CODM to evaluate how the business is growing, as revenue is the key driver of growth. Additionally, the CODM uses segment income (loss) to allocate resources in the annual budgeting and forecasting process. The CODM considers budget to actual variances when making decisions about allocating capital to each segment.

The Company has classified its reporting segments into commercial and residential rental properties. The commercial reporting segment includes the 141 Livingston Street property and portions of the 250 Livingston Street, Tribeca House, Dean Street and Aspen properties. The residential reporting segment includes the Flatbush Gardens property, the Clover House property, the 10 West 65th Street property, the 1010 Pacific Street property and portions of the 250 Livingston Street, Tribeca House, Dean Street and Aspen properties.

Presented below are reconciliations of the reportable segment total revenues to the consolidated revenues, the reportable segment total operating expenses to consolidate operating expenses, the reportable income from operations to the consolidated income from operations, the segment and consolidated income from operations to segment and consolidated net income(loss), the reportable segment assets to the consolidated assets, the reportable segment interest expense to the consolidated interest expense and thereportable segment capital expenditures to the consolidated capital expenditures.

The Company’s total assets by segment are as follows, as of:

The Company’s interest expense by segment for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, is as follows:

The Company’s capital expenditures by segment for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, are as follows:

The Company allocates assets, expenses and capital expenditures to each reportable segment by building. For those buildings that are shared between the segment’s allocations are done based on the percentage relative square footage of the building that is used to generate revenue for the segment. All corporate costs are allocated based on the percentage of square footage of the segment.

10. Impairment of long-lived assets

On March 31, 2025 the Company determined that its long-lived asset group related to 10 West 65 th Street met the qualifications for an asset held for sale by determining that the sale of 10 West 65 th Street was probable in addition to the other five criteria previously met. That determination was based on indications that the Company received that it was probable that a purchaser was prepared to purchase 10 West 65 th Street at a price the Company would be willing to transact.

Long-lived assets classified as held for sale are measured at the lower of its carrying amount or fair-value less costs to sell. As such, the Company recorded an impairment of the asset held for sale of $33,780 on the Company’s consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2025 and in the residential segment in the Company’s segment reporting (see footnote 9), based on the estimated selling price of $45.5 less carrying costs in investment in real estate, net, and estimated selling costs expected at the time of the sale. See footnote 1 for details of the completion of transaction to dispose of the long-lived assets.

11. Multiemployer Union Agreement and Pension Plan

Certain of the Company’s employees are covered by union-sponsored, collectively bargained, multiemployer defined benefit pension and profit-sharing plans, and health insurance, legal and training plans. Contributions to the plans are determined in accordance with the provisions of the negotiated labor contract. The Local 94 International Union of Operating Engineers contract is in effect through December 31, 2026. The Local 32BJ Service Employees International Union apartment building contract is in effect through April 20, 2026. The Local 32BJ Service Employees International Union commercial building contract in effect through December 31, 2027. The Building Maintenance Employees Union, Local 486 contract is in effect through February 28, 2026.

Contributions to the unions are not segregated or otherwise restricted to provide benefits only to the Company’s employees. The risks of participating in a multiemployer pension plan differ from those of a single-employer pension plan in the following aspects: (a) assets contributed to a multiemployer pension plan by one employer may be used to provide benefits to employees of other participating employers; (b) if a participating employer stops contributing to the plan, the unfunded obligation of the plan may be borne by the remaining participating employers; and (c) if the Company chooses to stop participating in the multiemployer plan, it may be required to pay the plan an amount based on the unfunded status of the plan, which is referred to as the withdrawal liability. The Company has no intention of withdrawing from the plans.

The information for the union’s multiemployer pension plans are as follows:

The information provided above is from the respective pension plan’s most current annual report, which for Local 32BJ is for the year ended January 01, 2026 and for Local 94 is for the year ended January 01, 2026. The Pension Protection Act Zone Status, the most recent zone status available, was provided to the Company by the respective plans and the Local 32BJ status is certified by the plan’s actuary. The Company’s contributions to the pension plans are less than 5% of all the employers’ contributions to the plans.

12. Subsequent Events

Subsequent to December 31, 2025 the Board of Directors declared a fourth quarter dividend of $0.095 per share, to stockholders of record on March 12, 2026, payable March 19, 2026.

Subsequent o December 31, 2025, the Company granted employees and non-employee directors 480,927 and 272,781 LTIP units, respectively, with a weighted-average grant date value of $3.36 per unit. The grants vesting period range from up toone year for those granted to the non-employee directors and fromone to 2.5 years to those granted to employees as 2025 bonus and long-term incentive compensation.

Clipper Realty Inc. and Predecessor

Schedule III–** Real Estate and Accumulated Depreciation**

(In thousands)