Her office says the proposals were to streamline the landmarking procedures but community groups led by the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation opposed the changes saying they would have removed public input. The commission subsequently revised its proposal and will hold a public hearing on Oct. 16.

Michael Sillerman, co-chair of Kramer Levin's land use group praises Srinivasan's experience and background. Referencing her bachelor's degree at the School of Architecture and Planning in New Delhi, India, and postgraduate degrees in architecture, city planning and urban design from the University of Pennsylvania, he says “Meenakshi is a trained architect and talented administrator who has overseen reviews of many of the city's most significant developments. We are excited to have her join our practice.”

Paul Selver, who also co-chairs the land use group, says, “Meenakshi's unique background, which includes senior positions at the three principal New York City land use agencies, has given her a deep knowledge of New York land use and an unmatched understanding of both land use policy and zoning laws that will be a great asset to the firm and our clients.”

Kramer Levin has received press attention for its representation of Mayor Bill de Blasio. Multiple publications have covered the mayor's relationship with the firm. Politico reported in June 2017, that the city would pay $2 million to Kramer Levin for defending multiple federal and state probes into the mayor's fundraising activities. The investigations ended without charges being brought. In billing the city, the mayor had noted that the legal fees related to his public service and governmental responsibilities.

The New York Post reported in June 2018, that in addition to the $2.6 million, Mayor de Blasio personally owed $300,000 to Kramer Levin. Parties involved in matters against real estate firms privately represented by Kramer Levin have claimed there is a potential conflict of interest when coming before the LPC and BSA. Kramer Levin, the mayor and the LPC have denied the law firm's having influence or receiving preferential treatment in decision-making.