NYC’s New Economic Justice Partnership: What the Memorandum of Understanding Between the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Means for Businesses

On August 20, New York City Mayor Zohran K. Mamdani, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr., and New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) Commissioner Samuel A.A. Levine announced the Economic Justice Partnership, a new collaboration between DCWP and the Manhattan District Attorney’s (D.A.) Office.¹ A Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU)² between DCWP and the Manhattan D.A.’s Office establishes a framework for the offices to coordinate investigations and enforcement involving wage theft, tenant harassment, and fraud targeting immigrants, including through the exchange of confidential information.³

The partnership represents an unusual model of formal enforcement coordination between a municipal civil enforcement agency and a county prosecutor’s office. Businesses operating in Manhattan, particularly those in the focus areas identified by the MOU, should consider how this arrangement may affect their risk exposure when faced with a government investigation.

Background

DCWP is New York City’s civil enforcement agency for consumer and worker protection.⁴ Its jurisdiction includes enforcing the Consumer Protection Law (CPL), Protected Time Off Law, Fair Workweek Law, and Delivery Worker Law.⁵ DCWP also licenses more than 45,000 businesses across more than 45 industries, giving DCWP inspection, investigative, and licensing leverage over a substantial share of the city’s economy.⁶ Commissioner Levine, who joined DCWP in January 2026, led the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection during the Biden administration.⁷

The Manhattan D.A.’s Office investigates and prosecutes criminal violations, including those involving labor exploitation, wage theft, immigrant-directed fraud, and abusive landlord conduct.⁸

Although the Manhattan D.A.’s Office and DCWP have historically worked together through DCWP’s submission of criminal referrals, the MOU formalizes that relationship and adds structured information-sharing and investigative coordination.⁹

Key Provisions of the MOU

Because the MOU itself has not been publicly released, the following description of its framework is drawn from the offices’ announcements:

• Information sharing. The MOU creates a channel for the two offices to exchange information, including confidential material, in support of investigations and cases and subject to applicable law.¹⁰
• Parallel proceedings. The offices will coordinate investigative actions, including parallel criminal and civil proceedings, where appropriate.
• Independent authority. Each office retains full independent authority over matters within its jurisdiction.
• Three focus areas. The partnership targets (1) wage theft, (2) tenant harassment, and (3) fraud targeting immigrants.
  
  

Why This MOU Is Unusual

Interagency MOUs between civil and criminal enforcement arms of the same entity—such as the U.S. Department of Justice’s protocols governing its Civil Division and criminal prosecutors—are not uncommon. But a formal MOU between a municipal civil enforcement agency and a county prosecutor’s office is unusual. Such an arrangement is significant because of the asymmetry of investigative tools: DCWP possesses broad civil subpoena power under the CPL to demand documents and testimony from businesses, and civil investigations carry lower procedural hurdles than criminal investigations, with no grand jury requirement and a less exacting standard for administrative subpoenas. The MOU creates a pathway by which information gathered through civil process may be made available to criminal prosecutors.

Implications for Businesses

The partnership affects businesses in at least two ways: first, by creating new risks around parallel proceedings and information sharing, and second, by heightening scrutiny in each of the three focus areas.

As described by the offices, the MOU contemplates parallel criminal and civil proceedings, which sharpens the risk calculus for businesses facing DCWP inquiries. DCWP has long been able to refer matters for criminal review, but under a standing coordination framework businesses should assume that:

• Information provided to DCWP in response to a subpoena or investigative demand may be shared with the Manhattan D.A.’s Office.
• A civil investigation may run concurrently with, or lead to, a criminal investigation.
• Statements and documents produced in the civil matter could support criminal prosecution.
  
  

These information flows also leave open questions about what protections apply to proprietary information provided to DCWP, what notice businesses will receive before that information reaches the Manhattan D.A.’s Office,¹¹ and how attorney-client privilege and work product protections will be treated in interagency sharing.

What Businesses Should Do Now

Businesses operating in Manhattan should consider the following steps:

• Conduct internal compliance audits. Review the focus areas—wage and hour practices, tenant relations, and services to immigrant communities—to identify and remediate potential violations before they become the subject of an investigation.
• Review and update response protocols. Protocols developed for civil DCWP inquiries may be inadequate given the potential for parallel criminal proceedings.
• Consult with counsel before responding. Given the potential for information to be shared with the Manhattan D.A.’s Office, responses to any DCWP subpoena, civil investigative demand, or informal inquiry should be prepared with criminal implications in mind.
• Train staff and document compliance efforts. Train employees on applicable wage-and-hour, tenant protection, as well as the CPL, with emphasis on documentation and recordkeeping. A demonstrated commitment to compliance may be relevant in both civil and criminal contexts.
  
  

What To Watch

Several developments over the coming months will shape how the partnership operates in practice:

• Whether other municipal agencies or D.A.’s offices in other boroughs adopt similar MOU frameworks, which could signal a broader shift in local enforcement strategy
• The first enforcement actions brought under the Economic Justice Partnership, which will provide insight into how the offices intend to exercise their coordinated authority in practice.
  
  

¹ Press Release, Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, “D.A. Bragg, Mayor Mamdani, And DCWP Commissioner Levine Launch Economic Justice Partnership Ahead Of Labor Day” (Aug. 20, 2026) [hereinafter D.A.’s Office Press Release], https://manhattanda.org/d-a-bragg-mayor-mamdani-and-dcwp-commissioner-levine-launch-economic-justice-partnership-ahead-of-labor-day/.
² While the MOU has not yet been publicly released, with limited exceptions, New York City’s Local Law 40 of 2011 requires agencies to post certain memoranda of understanding and similar agreements. Local Law No. 40 of 2011 § 3-113(b).
³ Press Release, NYC Mayor’s Office, “Mayor Mamdani, D.A. Bragg and DCWP Commissioner Levine Join Forces to Deliver Economic Justice for New Yorkers” (Aug. 20, 2026) [hereinafter DCWP-D.A. MOU], https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/08/mayor-mamdani--d-a--bragg-and-dcwp-commissioner-levine-join-for.
⁴ To Protect and Enhance the Daily Economic Lives of New Yorkers to Create Thriving Communities, NYC: Consumer and Worker Protection, https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/overview.page (last visited Sept. 10, 2026).
⁵ Id.
⁶ Id.
⁷ DCWP Commissioner, NYC: Consumer and Worker Protection, https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/commissioner.page (last visited Sept. 10, 2026).
⁸ D.A.’s Office Press Release, supra note 1.
⁹ DCWP-D.A. MOU, supra note 3.
¹⁰ Id. The MOU contemplates sharing of “confidential information” between the offices, “consistent with applicable law.”
¹¹ Under the federal due process standard governing parallel civil and criminal proceedings—rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970), and its progeny—the government generally has no obligation to disclose that a criminal investigation is running alongside a regulatory inquiry, so long as the civil process is not used solely as a vehicle for criminal evidence-gathering and the government does not affirmatively misrepresent the nature of its inquiry.