A $13 million Upper East Side Manhattan townhome is at the center of a tug-of-war between a widow and her dead husband’s housekeeper.
The former housekeeper is accused of being a squatter and is now being sued for refusing to leave and denying his estranged wife access to the property, according to the lawsuit.
The four-story, 6,650-square-foot property at 111 E. 81st St. was purchased in March 2022 by mattress mogul Craig Schmeizer, 52, who died on Nov. 20, 2025.
111 NYC LLC—the entity that owns the townhome—filed suit against Schmeizer’s former housekeeper, Hilarie Page, on Feb. 16 in New York Supreme Court.
Schmeizer’s estranged wife, neurologist Sarah Shalev, is the trustee of the two trusts that control 111 NYC LLC.
According to the complaint obtained by Realtor.com®, Page remains in the property and is blocking estate representatives from going inside.
111 NYC LLC’s attorney, Peter Kolodny, told Realtor.com, “sorry, I cannot comment on a pending matter.”
Page and Shalev did not return Realtor.com’s request for comment.
According to court documents, “prior to his death, Schmeizer permitted Page to reside in the Building and occupy a portion thereof.”
Page reportedly continues to live there, but the lawsuit states that “the said license of Page to occupy space in the Building was terminated by virtue of the death of Schmeizer” and that “Page has no right to use or occupy any portion of the Building.”
Shalev does have the “right to enter the Building,” according to court documents.
Thwarted attempts to enter the townhome
In an affidavit, Shalev said, “On November 20, 2025, I called and spoke with Page after Schmeizer’s passing, at which time she was extremely hostile, told me she was not going to leave the house because Craig was dead, and it was clear that I would not be allowed into the Building.”
The filing states, “Since the death of Schmeizer, Shalev and her representatives have attempted to gain access to the Building but Page has refused to allow them to enter the Building and will not provide a key to the entrance door of the Building.”
Shalev’s affidavit also claims that she “had learned that [Page] had been arrested for assaulting Schmeizer” and was therefore “afraid to ring the doorbell of the Building” by herself.
When Realtor.com reached out to the NYPD public information office about details of that alleged arrest, a Deputy Commissioner Public Information spokesperson said, “There is no arrest on file.”
According to the complaint, Shalev and her legal representative Michael Landsman attempted to gain access to the building on Feb. 5 by “ringing the doorbell, banging on the door, and throwing snowballs at windows.”
When no one responded, a locksmith was reportedly called and gained entry.
According to the complaint, Page “ran toward the door screaming and both parties called the police.”
In her affidavit, Shalev says police “told my representative [Landsman] and me that Page was a ‘squatter’ and that we had to leave.”
Landsman told Realtor.com, “I do not comment on pending litigation.”
Insurance issues and other matters
Court documents state that the building is “presently significantly underinsured due to the insurance company being deprived of access for an inspection, which is a condition of the issuance of a policy.”
An email dated Feb. 18 that was filed with the court said that insurance company Chubb was unwilling to offer a policy on the property, and that RPS had provided a quote “in the premium range of $135,000” but “would need to conduct an inspection in the next 14 days.”
In that email, insurance broker Nick Philip wrote, “Please provide the best contact information for the individual who can grant us access for the inspection.”
In an emergency affirmation, Kolodny wrote, “It is now essential and urgent that access be provided to the Building for an insurance inspection. Otherwise, the Building will be uninsured.”
The complaint also alleges that “utility bills have not been paid for an extended period of time” and that there are “numerous bills, notices, etc. which must be dealt with.”
According to the complaint, the LLC is also requesting access to “financial records and other essential information concerning Schmeizer and his affairs,” including “any new will or other updated estate planning documents.”
The filing claims that Schmeizer’s three children “have been requesting small sentimental items belonging to their father, [and] photographs and gifts received from their father.”
The complaint states that “the wine cellar containing a large amount of valuable wine must be inventoried” and “artwork must be inventoried for estate and insurance purposes.”
Property must be sold
In addition, the filing states that because the building does not generate any income, it “must be sold, which requires real estate professionals having access to show the property and take such other action as may be required for a sale.”
In the filing, the LLC is seeking a court order requiring payment for the “reasonable value of Defendant’s use and occupancy of the Building,” which it estimates at $49,000 per month, beginning on the date of Schmeizer’s death and continuing until “the date the Plaintiff obtains full and exclusive possession of the Building.”
They’re also asking for a mandatory injunction against Page, “requiring and compelling her to give Plaintiff, its representatives, insurance company representatives, inspection companies, [and] real estate professionals unfettered and ongoing access to the Building.”
Their first court date is set for April 7, 2026.
An attorney weighs in
New York attorney Maria Beltrani, partner at Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas, reviewed the case and tells Realtor.com, “it’s not your typical squatter case, which usually involves a situation where a stranger takes over a property without consent. Here, there seems to be more to it than that.”
Because Page was Schmeizer’s former housekeeper, Beltrani says it “tends to get a little bit more complicated—particularly if the woman thinks there is something she can get out of this.”
Beltrani says, “As I understand it from the allegations, she was never a tenant, she was a licensee. The person she was living with died, so her ability to stay there as a matter of law expired when he died. Any rights she had would have expired at the same time.”
Beltrani says, “I would say she is probably using her possession of the place as leverage to get something else. Evicting a squatter can unfortunately be a very long process in New York. She is probably looking for a cash buyout to leave.”
Another squatter case in the news
Meanwhile, another squatter case is making headlines.
A 40-year-old woman accused of squatting in a $2.3 million, 7,500-square-foot mansion in the Washington, DC, suburbs has returned to the property after spending just over a week behind bars, according to The Baltimore Sun.
Tameika Goode, who was charged last year with trespassing and burglary after moving into a court-owned Bethesda, MD, home, was incarcerated for less than two weeks amid a protracted legal dispute.
Spotlight on Maryland spoke with Goode’s attorney, Alex Webster, who told it, “Miss Goode did her research. She found out that a certain property was under the control of a certain group—there was a title issue. Due to the title issue, she was able to assume the property under squatter’s rights.”
Shiera Goff, director of media and public information for the Montgomery County Police Department, told Spotlight on Maryland, “the squatters have been in the house for more than 30 days so they have gained residency status.”
Goode is scheduled to be back in court on March 6.
Property advocate Tevis Verrett, principal of Triumvirate Law Group and founder of Squatter Lockout, tells Realtor.com, “unfortunately, these two cases of bold squatters asserting possessory rights are an all-too-common occurrence. The brazenness of street-savvy grifters must be met with an equal fierceness of legal weaponry and prowess.”