New York City Councilwoman Julie Won omitted a rent-free apartment worth $5,000 a month from her 2024 financial disclosure filings, an arrangement that government watchdogs say raises serious conflict-of-interest questions just days before she faces voters in a congressional primary.

Won, a Queens Democrat now running to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez in New York's 7th Congressional District, moved into a one-bedroom unit at Skyline Towers on Long Island City's waterfront in November 2024 with her husband, political strategist Eugene Noh, and their two children. The unit's owner, Democratic political consultant Justin Chae, told the New York Post he waived the $5,000 monthly rent over a one-year lease as a bonus tied to Noh's agreement to serve as vice president of campaigns at Chae's firm, Legion Outreach Consultants.

Won never listed the perk on her 2024 annual disclosure forms filed with the city's Conflicts of Interest Board. The forms explicitly ask candidates whether they received "any gift or gifts valued at $1,000" or more. Even counting only the last two months of 2024, Won's share of the waived rent would have totaled $5,000, five times the disclosure threshold.

Watchdogs flag the gap

Two prominent New York good-government groups said the omission is a problem. Ben Weinberg, director of public policy at Citizens Union, told the Post:

"Receiving free housing from someone with political interests that could interact with your official duties is the kind of arrangement [that] raises conflict of interest concerns. Elected officials in that situation should get formal guidance from COIB and disclose it as a gift."

Rachael Fauss, senior policy advisor at Reinvent Albany, agreed. "It could potentially be seen as a gift, so it belongs on the forms somewhere," Fauss said.

The city's Conflicts of Interest Board has not made a formal determination. COIB Executive Director Carolyn Miller said she could not "provide a definitive answer" on whether Won broke the rules without speaking to Won and getting "all the relevant facts." Miller added a general observation that carries its own weight: "Receiving something of value could be considered a gift under the annual disclosure law, and it also could be compensation in connection with one's employment."

Miller also noted that "for a married couple, there is often a question about who received the thing of value for reporting purposes, the filer or their spouse." That distinction may matter legally. But for voters trying to judge a candidate's transparency, the practical question is simpler: a sitting councilwoman lived rent-free in a $1 million condo owned by a political consultant, and the public learned about it not from her disclosure forms but from a landlord-tenant blowup.

From free rent to eviction papers

The arrangement unraveled fast. Chae told the Post that Noh's employment at Legion Outreach Consultants was terminated in June of last year. Yet Won and her family remained in the apartment. Chae filed eviction papers, and Won and her family vacated the condo on June 1, three days after being served. Court filings show Chae dropped the eviction case on June 8 because the couple had already left.

The dispute is not over. Chae told the Post he plans to sue Won and Noh to recoup $25,000 in rent he alleges they owe for the first five months of this year, a period that apparently followed the end of the original rent-free arrangement tied to Noh's employment.

Won has pushed back. She has insisted that she and her husband never signed any lease on the apartment and claimed Chae forged her name on the lease agreement. She described the public airing of the dispute as a "clearly political smear job" and has threatened to sue Chae for going public. She did not respond to the Post's requests for comment for its latest report.

This is far from the only controversy involving New York City elected officials and legal disputes. Earlier this year, a fellow Democratic council member filed a misconduct complaint after a Brooklyn arrest, part of a pattern of city lawmakers finding themselves on the wrong side of legal proceedings.

The disclosure question

Whether Won's conduct violated the letter of the city's conflict-of-interest law remains an open question, one that COIB has not yet resolved. But the spirit of the disclosure requirement is not ambiguous. The forms exist so voters and the public can see whether an elected official is receiving something of value from someone who might have business before the city.

Chae is a top Democratic political consultant in New York City. His firm operates in the same ecosystem of campaigns and government contracts that a sitting councilwoman influences. A rent-free apartment worth $60,000 over a full year is not a casual favor between old friends. It is a material benefit, and the disclosure forms are designed to capture exactly that kind of arrangement.

There is also a tax dimension. Fair-market-value employer-provided housing is generally considered a taxable fringe benefit that must be reported as income. Recipients are typically required to pay both federal and state taxes on it. Whether Won or Noh reported the rent-free housing on their tax filings is unknown.

The situation echoes a broader pattern of Democratic officials facing scrutiny over financial entanglements. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom's $20 million diaper program drew corruption accusations over insider ties, illustrating how cozy relationships between political figures and those who benefit from government decisions erode public trust.

Timing and stakes

Won faces voters in the June 23 Democratic primary for New York's 7th Congressional District, which covers parts of Queens and Brooklyn. She is running in a crowded field. The disclosure gap surfaced publicly just ten days before the primary, hardly ideal timing for a candidate who needs voters to trust her judgment.

Won's defense rests on two pillars: that she never signed a lease, and that the whole episode is a political hit job. But the lease agreement Chae shared with the Post lists Won, Noh, and their two children. Court filings confirm the family lived in the unit and vacated only after eviction papers arrived. Whatever the truth about signatures and forgery claims, the family lived there. They did not pay rent. And the public filing that was supposed to capture that arrangement came back blank.

The COIB's 2025 filings have not yet been publicly released, so it remains unclear whether Won disclosed the housing arrangement for the current year. That gap leaves voters with no way to verify her compliance during the very period the dispute was most active.

New York City's political culture has produced no shortage of officials whose personal conduct clashed with their public duties. An immigration judge recently ordered the deportation of a City Council staffer who overstayed a visa since 2017, another reminder that the people who make and enforce the rules are not always following them.

What voters deserve to know

Won's supporters may argue that the rent-free arrangement was between her husband and his employer, not a gift to a public official. That is a legal distinction COIB may eventually sort out. But disclosure rules exist precisely because these lines blur, especially when the public official, the beneficiary, and the political consultant all operate in the same small world of New York Democratic politics.

The Post previously reported on the eviction-related details, including the landlord's account of the dispute. The latest reporting adds the disclosure dimension, and the watchdog voices warning that the omission itself is a problem, regardless of how the underlying arrangement is characterized.

Meanwhile, the political environment at City Hall continues to produce headlines. A city councilman was recently arrested after blocking police during a Brooklyn eviction, and the mayor publicly sided with him, a reminder of how New York's progressive political class treats legal boundaries as suggestions rather than rules.

Won wants a promotion. She wants to move from the City Council to Congress. Voters in the 7th District might reasonably ask: if a councilwoman cannot manage to check a box on a disclosure form about a $5,000-a-month apartment she lived in for free, what else will she forget to mention when the stakes get higher?

Disclosure laws only work when officials take them seriously. The forms are not optional. The thresholds are not ambiguous. And the public's right to know does not depend on whether the officeholder finds the questions convenient.