Starting on June 11, 2025, NY residential real estate purchasers will receive a new pamphlet, called "What Mortgage Applicants Need to Know," pursuant to A9686.

This pamphlet is going to be created by the NYS Department of Financial Services and it will be available on the Department's Website - https://www.dfs.ny.gov/ where lenders have an affirmative duty to provide the form and put it on their website, as described in the law.

The pamphlet will equip all mortgage applicants, and especially non-English speaking homebuyers, with information on interest rates and market comparisons before they engage with lenders and bankers. Lenders and bankers are also required to provide buyers with the pamphlet. 

Loan officers (LO) beware - this pamphlet directs consumers to file a complaint with CFPB if such consumer believes that such LO violated the law. 

Real Estate Brokers beware - this pamphlet directs consumers to file a complaint with DOS if such consumer believes that such broker violated the law "in working with you to purchase a home," which is without limitation to lending. 

In fact, the pamphlet, developed by the Department of Financial Services, must include the following minimum requirements:

"'WHAT MORTGAGE APPLICANTS NEED TO KNOW'
   AS AN APPLICANT FOR A RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:
   1. COMPARE AND NEGOTIATE THE CHARGES OF DIFFERENT MORTGAGE BROKERS AND
 LENDERS TO OBTAIN THE BEST LOAN POSSIBLE.
   2.  ASK YOUR MORTGAGE BROKER TO EXPLAIN SUCH PERSON'S RESPONSIBILITIES
 WITHIN THE MORTGAGE LENDING PROCESS.
   3. KNOW HOW MUCH THE MORTGAGE BROKER IS COMPENSATED  BY  YOU  AND  THE
 LENDER FOR YOUR LOAN.

 4. A CLEAR AND TRUTHFUL EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
 LOAN.
   5.  KNOW IF THE LOAN BEING OFFERED IS A FIXED OR ADJUSTABLE RATE MORT-
 GAGE LOAN, WHETHER THE LOAN CAN BE TRANSFERRED OR REFINANCED,  KNOW  THE
 EXACT  AMOUNT  OF  YOUR  MONTHLY  LOAN PAYMENTS, INCLUDING ANY PROJECTED
 ESCROW PAYMENTS, KNOW THE FINAL ANNUAL PERCENTAGE  RATE  (APR)  AND  THE
 AMOUNT OF REGULAR PAYMENTS AT THE LOAN'S CLOSING.
   6.  ASK  FOR  LOAN  ESTIMATE DETAILING ALL LOAN AND SETTLEMENT CHARGES
 BEFORE YOU AGREE TO THE LOAN AND PAY ANY FEES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITA-
 TION LOAN APPLICATION FEES, TITLE SEARCH AND  INSURANCE  FEES,  LENDER'S
 ATTORNEY  FEES, PROPERTY APPRAISAL CHARGES, INSPECTIONS, RECORDING FEES,
 LATE PAYMENT FEES, TRANSFER TAXES, POINT AND  ORIGINATION  FEES,  ESCROW
 ACCOUNT BALANCES, WHICH SERVICES A LOAN APPLICANT CAN SHOP FOR AND WHICH
 THEY  CANNOT, AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SUCH ESTIMATE WITHIN THREE
 BUSINESS DAYS OF APPLYING FOR A LOAN.
   7. OBTAIN CREDIT COUNSELING BEFORE CLOSING A LOAN.
   8. DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO FINANCE ANY PORTION OF THE POINTS OR FEES.
   9. REFUSE TO PURCHASE CREDIT INSURANCE FOR ANY MORTGAGE LOAN.
   10. HAVE YOUR PROPERTY APPRAISED BY AN  INDEPENDENT  LICENSED  PROFES-
 SIONAL AND TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE APPRAISAL.
   11. NOT BE SUBJECT TO DECEPTIVE MARKETING PRACTICES.
   12.  ASK  FOR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU'S BOOKLET "YOUR
 HOME LOAN TOOLKIT".
   13. RECEIVE THE FOLLOWING  DOCUMENTS,  AND  EVERY  DOCUMENT  OTHERWISE
 REQUIRED  TO BE GIVEN TO YOU AT CLOSING UNDER FEDERAL AND NEW YORK STATE
 LAW:
   A. LOAN ESTIMATE,
   B. CLOSING DISCLOSURE.
   14. KNOW WHAT DEPOSITS AND FEES ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IF  YOU  DECIDE  TO
 CANCEL THE LOAN AGREEMENT.
   15.  RECEIVE  IN  WRITING  THE  REASON  FOR  THE DENIAL OR CONDITIONAL
 APPROVAL OF YOUR LOAN APPLICATION.
   16. IF REFINANCING, YOU MAY CANCEL A LOAN WITHIN  THREE  DAYS  OF  THE
 CLOSING  BY  PROVIDING  WRITTEN  NOTIFICATION  OF  CANCELLATION  TO  THE
 LICENSED LENDER OR BANKING INSTITUTION.
   17. RECEIVE THE CLOSING DISCLOSURE THREE DAYS BEFORE THE CLOSING TAKES
 PLACE.
   18. HAVE ANY LENDING DISPUTES RESOLVED IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER.
   19. A CREDIT DECISION  THAT  IS  NOT  BASED  UPON  YOUR  RACE,  COLOR,
 NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILY STATUS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, DISA-
 BILITY OR WHETHER ANY INCOME IS FROM PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
   20.  FILE  A  COMPLAINT  WITH THE DEP
ARTMENT OR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL
 PROTECTION BUREAU IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A MORTGAGE  BROKER  OR  ANY  OTHER
 ENTITY  LICENSED  BY THE DEPARTMENT OR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
 BUREAU HAS VIOLATED ANY RULES, REGULATIONS OR  LAWS  WHICH  GOVERN  SUCH
 PERSON'S CONDUCT IN WORKING WITH YOU TO GET OR PROCESS A MORTGAGE LOAN.
   21.  FILE  A  COMPLAINT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR
 THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU IF  YOU  BELIEVE  THAT  A  REAL
 ESTATE  BROKER  HAS VIOLATED ANY RULES, REGULATIONS OR LAWS WHICH GOVERN
 SUCH PERSON'S CONDUCT IN WORKING WITH YOU TO PURCHASE A HOME."

Victims of employment discrimination in New York will be well pressed to file for Workers' Compensation concerning any related emotional distress starting on January 1, 2025 or they will be very limited in recovering emotional distress damages as part of their discrimination claim.

Specifically, Workers' Compensation Law 10(3)(b) has been amended, by A5745, to permit all "worker[s to] file[] claim[s] for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred at work."

Previously, the availability of Workers' Compensation for "mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress" only applied to emergency service workers (police, firefighter, emergency medical technician, paramedic, & emergency dispatcher), but now it applies across the board to all workers. Moreover, Worker's Compensation for such mental injuries was previously limited to "work-related emergency" and now it just must occur "at work." This amended law is very broad and clearly applies to all workers for work related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

That all said, a worker seeking to obtain Workers' Compensation benefits for such mental injuries still has the burden of demonstrating a causal relationship supported by a rational basis between his work and his documented PTSD diagnosis. To prove this connection, a worker should hire both Workers' Compensation counsel and Employment Discrimination counsel as the two claims are now wholly interrelated and a failure of one will hurt the other and vice-versa. 

As artificial intelligence continues to transform industries, it also presents unique legal challenges, particularly in avoiding discriminatory practices embedded in AI systems. To help attorneys navigate these complexities, Lieb at Law Associate Claudia Cannam recently taught a 1-credit CLE course through Quimbee, titled “Avoiding Discrimination in AI.”

Register Now: Attorneys can register for Claudia Cannam's Avoiding Discrimination in AI CLE course here.

Sponsored by Ted Cruz, the Take It Down Act (S4569) has passed the Senate and heads to the House so that a newly inaugurated President Trump can protect women from online sexual harassment, including revenge porn. 

Is Trump 2.0 going to be the protector of women? He did say that he is the protector of women “whether the women like it or not," maybe foreshadowing signing this bill? 

Anyway, to the law, it modifies the criminal prohibition on intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions (47 USC 223) by inserting a new subsection (g). This new section includes penalties of up to 2 years in prison (3 if it involves a minor). Under the law, it's now (if signed by Trump) unlawful to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual where their was a reasonable expectation of privacy, amongst other crimes. Plus, there is a restitution section where victims can receive compensation for their pain, including for psychological care, lost income, and attorneys’ fees, plus any costs incurred in obtaining a civil protection order. 

To be clear, the law is not sex / gender specific and in fact, there is a section about utilizing a digital forgery of a person without consent, regardless if it it contains intimate depiction.

The Federal Department of Labor is seeking by Proposed Rulemaking to eliminate certificates that had allowed employers to pay productivity-based subminimum wages to workers with disabilities without violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Think it's a good idea?

Regardless, think Trump thinks it's a good idea? 

Interesting time to make such a change given that Trump likes that cheap labor regardless that the purpose of the curtailments was altruistic in creating opportunities for employment for the disabled. 

Anyway, you can share your thoughts on or before January 17, 2025, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA14, by either of the following methods:

• Electronic Comments: Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Address written submissions to: Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.

Starting on March 25, 2025, a new law (A00028) requires restaurants that provide food deliveries through a website or mobile application to post a hyperlink to the restaurant’s sanitary inspection grades.

The law applies to "internet-based food delivery service providers," including not only restaurants offering deliveries online, but also third-party mobile applications/websites that coordinate food deliveries to customers of restaurants.

This law includes a civil monetary penalty for violations. 

New York has passed a new law, Bill S2271, that simplifies the recognition of out-of-state notarizations, making it easier for businesses and individuals to transact business across state lines.

Previously, New York required a "certificate of conformity" to verify that out-of-state notarizations complied with the laws of the other state. This extra step created delays and added costs for transactions. Under the new law, the signatures and titles of authorized out-of-state notaries now serve as conclusive proof of their authority. 

In simple terms, if a document is notarized according to the laws of another state, it will be treated as valid in New York without additional verification.

By eliminating these unnecessary hurdles, the law streamlines cross-state transactions, saving time and money. Businesses can now operate more efficiently across state lines, while individuals benefit from smoother processes when buying property, signing contracts, or managing other legal matters.

The law is effective immediately, offering instant relief to those dealing with cross-state paperwork. Whether you’re a business professional or a consumer, this change makes interstate transactions easier, less expensive, and more efficient. 

On November 20, 2024, the Honorable Angel Kelley of the United States District Court of Massachusetts issued a Final Approval Order for a $2.275 million settlement involving SafeRent Solutions, LLC ("SafeRent"). In the lawsuit, it was alleged that SafeRent's tenant-screening algorithm was used to evaluate rental applicants where it disproportionately disadvantaged housing voucher recipients, particularly Black and Hispanic applicants. 

Under the settlement, SafeRent committed to:

• No longer use unvalidated scoring models for applicants with housing vouchers unless validated by organizations like the National Fair Housing Alliance.
• Educate landlords on the differences between its scoring models and the implications for housing voucher applicants.

In addition, SafeRent will pay $1.175 million into a settlement fund for affected applicants and $1.1 million for attorneys’ fees. Moreover, landlords using SafeRent’s screening products must certify whether applicants are housing voucher recipients. If certification isn’t provided, tenant-screening scores will be excluded.

For those using tenant-screening services, this case highlights the risks of relying on AI-driven tools without thoroughly understanding or auditing the impact of these tools. Algorithms that inadvertently reinforce biases, whether based on income, race, or other protected characteristics, could lead to significant legal and financial liabilities under the Fair Housing Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws.

Landlords and PropTech should conduct regular audits by trusted third-party validators to avoid discrimination as technology rapidly emerges in this field.

Landlords and PropTech should take this case as motivation to review your screening process, including:

• Do your tools account for biases in their data or design?
• Are they validated for compliance with anti-discrimination laws?
• Are you confident they don’t inadvertently exclude protected groups?

As SafeRent’s case demonstrates, the stakes are high. It’s not just about avoiding lawsuits, it’s about ensuring equitable access to housing and fostering trust in the rental process. Invest in a third-party audit of the AI tools you use, update your policies, and ensure your practices align with Federal, State, and Local fair housing laws. 

Amazon recently updated its Reasonable Accommodation Policy as to employees seeking disability accommodations to work from home.  

Here is an explanation of their updated policy based on Bloomberg Reports. 

In a nutshell, the policy includes a more rigorous vetting process, multilevel leader review, and month-long return to the office trials. 

As a result, Amazon may wind-up defending more failure-to-accommodate claims while enacting this policy update. Specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The ADA mandates that employers engage in an interactive process, assessing requests individually in a timely manner. By implementing a more complex approval system, Amazon may be making it harder for employees with disabilities to receive the accommodations that they need, potentially violating the ADA. 

First, the new process requires a complex "multilevel leader review," which could lead to significant delays before employees' requests are approved. This extended waiting period could violate the ADA's requirement to address requests for accommodations in a timely manner, which is seen as a constructive denial of the requested accommodation that makes a failure-to-accommodate lawsuit ripe for adjudication. 

Additionally, the policy is problematic because it applies to both new requests and extensions of existing accommodations. Employees who have already been granted accommodations may now be required to return to the office for month-long trials to assess whether their needs are being met. This one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for all disabilities, and pushing employees back to the office without considering their specific needs could be seen as a failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA.

If employees are unable to obtain the accommodations they require and are forced to work in ways that don’t suit their disabilities, they may feel forced to leave the company. In such cases, this could be considered constructive discharge, where the work environment becomes so intolerable that employees feel they have no choice but to quit.

If Amazon's new policy fails to comply with the ADA or similar state and local laws, it could face serious legal consequences. Affected employees should file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is a condition precedent to bringing an ADA claim. Remember, dependent on location, such a charge must be filed with EEOC in as early as 180 days (some states extend this to 300 days, but federal sector employees only have 45 days to contact an EEO Counselor to get the ball rolling). 

Amazon's actions highlight the need for employers to carefully balance workplace goals with their legal obligations to uphold disability rights under federal, state, and local laws.