Section 8 Discrimination Cases Against Housing Providers, Brokerages, and Property Managers Face New Motions to Dismiss After New York Decision

In a significant decision for housing providers across New York and beyond, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal of a source-of-income discrimination enforcement action on constitutional grounds.

The case, The People of the State of New York v. Commons West, LLC, holds that enforcing New York’s source-of-income protections under Executive Law § 296(5)(a)(1) facially violates the Fourth Amendment when it effectively compels landlords to participate in the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program which requires governmental inspections and providing records to the government.

Although the decision will likely be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals (highest state court), it currently stands as binding appellate authority throughout the state, and persuasive authority in all other states.

For defendants facing source-of-income discrimination claims, the ruling immediately alters the litigation landscape.

Key Takeaway: In People of the State of New York v. Commons West, LLC, the Appellate Division held that enforcing source-of-income discrimination laws to compel participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program violates the Fourth Amendment because the program requires consent to government inspections and access to records. As a result, defendants in Section 8 discrimination cases may now assert constitutional defenses and pursue motions to dismiss in courts and administrative proceedings across New York.

The Constitutional Conflict Behind the Case

New York law prohibits discrimination based on lawful source of income, including participation in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

The Third Department concluded, however, that enforcing this requirement against landlords forces them to submit to government inspections and provide records as a condition of renting to voucher holders.

Under federal Section 8 regulations:

• Local public housing authorities must inspect rental units before occupancy.
• Units must meet federal housing quality standards.
• Inspections must occur at least every two years.
• Landlords must provide records relating to rents and comparable units.
• Landlords must sign a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract granting “full and free access” to the premises and records.

These requirements arise from 42 U.S.C. § 1437f and related federal regulations, including 24 CFR 5.703 and 24 CFR 982.405.

The Appellate Division concluded that forcing landlords to participate in a program requiring inspections and document access constitutes an unconstitutional condition.

Put simply, the government cannot require property owners to waive Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches as a condition of complying with state anti-discrimination law.

A Credible Threat of Enforcement Is Enough

The court did not require proof that inspections had already occurred, and in the case before the court, they admittedly did not occur.

Instead, it held that a credible threat of enforcement was sufficient to establish the constitutional violation, which credible threat exists merely from participation in the Section 8 Program.

As the court explained, participation in the program requires landlords “to consent to governmental searches of their rental properties and records.”

Because enforcement of the Human Rights Law would compel landlords to enter a program requiring those searches, the action was dismissed.

Why This Decision Matters for Housing Providers

For landlords, property managers, and real estate brokerage professionals, the decision creates a significant new defense in source-of-income discrimination cases.

Until reversed by the Court of Appeals, defendants should evaluate whether to pursue motions to dismiss in matters pending before:

• New York State courts
• Federal courts
• The New York State Division of Human Rights
• The New York City Commission on Human Rights
• Other administrative enforcement bodies

In each forum, the constitutional analysis in Commons West may undermine enforcement of claims tied to Section 8 participation.

An Industry Inflection Point for Real Estate Brokerage / Property Management Compliance

The decision in People v. Commons West, LLC marks a turning point in how source-of-income discrimination cases are litigated across the real estate industry.

For years, enforcement actions involving Section 8 participation have targeted not only housing providers, but also real estate brokerages and their agents as well as property managers. Brokerage firms are frequently named as respondents based on statements by agents, listing language, or allegations that voucher-backed applicants were discouraged during the rental process.

This appellate ruling introduces a new constitutional dimension to those cases, which has been argued before, but now has binding effect.

If participation in Section 8 requires landlords to consent to government inspections and disclosure of records, and courts determine that compelling such participation violates the Fourth Amendment, then the legal foundation of certain source-of-income enforcement actions may be vulnerable.

For brokerage firms operating across New York, this raises broader compliance and litigation considerations. Defense counsel should begin levaraging this constitutional argument in administrative proceedings and court cases involving voucher-related discrimination claims.

Regulators and plaintiff-side attorneys will almost certainly attempt to limit the reach of the decision until the issue is resolved by the New York Court of Appeals, at least to only Section 8 rather than applying it to all forms of source of income discrimination as the decision was written broadly.

In the interim, Commons West has the potential to reshape how Section 8 discrimination claims are defended throughout the real estate industry.

All housing providers, real estate brokers, and property managers facing source-of-income discrimination claims should immediately evaluate whether a motion to dismiss is warranted in light of People v. Commons West, LLC.

If your business has been named in a Section 8 discrimination complaint, the defense strategy may have changed overnight.

Lieb at Law, P.C. represents housing providers, property managers, and brokerage firms in discrimination defense and constitutional challenges in state courts, federal courts, and administrative proceedings throughout New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

Contact our litigation team to evaluate whether this new precedent creates a viable motion to dismiss in your case.

*attorney advertising

Co-Ownership Litigation in Business and Real Estate: Partition, Derivative Claims, and Dissolution Strategy

 When co-owners start fighting, the instinct is to “file something.”

That is usually the first mistake.

In ownership disputes involving businesses or real estate, the most important decision is not whether to sue. It is what procedural vehicle you choose. Partition. Derivative action. Direct fiduciary claims. Dissolution. Receivership. Each one changes leverage, remedies, timing, and valuation risk. If you choose wrong at the start, you spend the rest of the case trying to recover.

The partition trap

Two siblings inherit a mixed-use building. One wants to sell. The other wants to keep collecting rent. The knee-jerk reaction is a partition action. But the real question is simple: who owns the property?

• If title is held personally by the co-owners, partition may be correct.
• If an entity owns the property, partition is usually wrong. The dispute is about governance and control.

If the property qualifies as heirs property under RPAPL 993, statutory procedures can alter settlement posture, valuation mechanics, and timing. That analysis belongs at the beginning of the case, not after filing.

Partition disputes frequently overlap with broader business disputes and commercial litigation where ownership structure determines the remedy.

Direct vs. derivative: who was harmed?

In a 50/50 LLC, one member diverts company funds to a related entity. The first legal question is not how offensive the conduct feels. It is: who suffered the injury?

If the entity was harmed, the claim is derivative. If the owner suffered a distinct personal injury, the claim may be direct. Plead this incorrectly and you can lose standing before you ever reach the merits.

Derivative actions for breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and misappropriation are common in ownership disputes. (For more on that, see our work on Derivative Actions and Fiduciary Litigation.)

Common lawsuits in co-ownership conflicts:

• Derivative actions for breach of fiduciary duty or waste
• Direct oppression or freeze-out claims
• Judicial dissolution petitions
• Partition actions involving co-owned real estate
• Books-and-records proceedings used as leverage in buyout disputes
• Emergency applications tied to asset diversion or deadlock

The receiver fantasy

Clients often ask for a receiver immediately. Courts do not grant receivers lightly. Receivership is extraordinary relief. Disagreement is not enough. Allegations are not enough. You need proof that property or business assets are at risk of being lost or materially injured.

Asking for a receiver without sufficient factual support can reduce credibility and weaken leverage in ongoing commercial litigation.

Dissolution is not always leverage

Lawyers often threaten dissolution early in a dispute. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it destroys enterprise value. If the business depends on vendor relationships, licensing, financing, or regulatory approval, public dissolution litigation can trigger cascading harm.

A strong complaint is not always a smart complaint. Litigation strategy must account for operational fragility.

Ethical landmines

Representing the entity versus representing an individual stakeholder is not a minor distinction. Blurring those roles creates conflict exposure and unnecessary motion practice. Ethical clarity is strategic clarity.

The real issue: leverage architecture

Ownership litigation is about designing leverage. The procedural vehicle controls standing, remedies, buyout dynamics, valuation exposure, and pace. The first filing often determines the trajectory of the case.

---

Continuing Legal Education: Co-Ownership Litigation in Business & Real Estate

I am teaching a 1-credit live CLE on March 12, 2026 at 12 PM EST covering:

• Direct vs. derivative claim structure
• Partition eligibility and heirs property under RPAPL 993
• Receivership standards and strategic considerations
• Dissolution strategy and valuation risk
• Ethical boundaries in entity disputes
• Client management during active ownership conflicts

If you handle business breakups, governance disputes, or co-owned real estate conflicts, this program focuses on the front-end analysis that prevents avoidable damage.

Course details and registration: https://www.liebatlaw.com/cles/co-ownership-litigation

Andrew Lieb, Esq., MPH is the Managing Attorney of Lieb at Law, P.C., a litigation-focused firm handling high-stakes business disputes, commercial litigation, and ownership conflicts. Attorney profile: Andrew Lieb.

*attorney advertising

DOL Proposes Another Independent Contractor Shift. Businesses Should Assume Litigation Is Coming.

On February 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued a Proposed Rule that may once again change how independent contractor status is determined under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

If finalized, this would be the third major shift in less than a decade.

The current standard took effect in 2024. Now the DOL is considering a return to the 2021 framework, with modifications.

The proposed return emphasizes two core factors:

1. The degree of control the worker actually exercises over the work; and
2. Whether the worker has a genuine opportunity for profit or loss.

The DOL’s stated reason is predictability. It argues that the 2024 “totality-of-the-circumstances” approach, where no factor carried predetermined weight, created uncertainty and discouraged legitimate independent contractor relationships. The agency believes a return to the 2021 “core factors” framework may reduce compliance costs and slightly increase independent contracting.

That is the policy argument.

The litigation reality is different.

This Is an Enterprise Risk Issue, Not a Technical HR Update

Independent contractor classification is no longer a drafting exercise. It is a balance sheet issue.

If misclassification is alleged, exposure can include:

• Unpaid wages and overtime
• Liquidated damages
• Attorneys’ fees
• Class or collective actions
• Parallel state claims under NY Labor Law
• Freelance Isn’t Free Act liability
• Retaliation claims
• Potential personal liability for owners and executives

If your revenue model relies on independent contractors, regulatory volatility does not reduce risk. It increases it.

Each swing in federal policy invites a new wave of audits, private litigation, and opportunistic claims.

Classification Risk Is Built Into How Your Business Operates

At Lieb at Law, P.C., we evaluate classification risk the way a litigator would, not the way a form agreement does.

We look at:

• Compensation and commission structures
• Control mechanisms in practice, not just on paper
• Use of technology for supervision or tracking
• Non-competes and restrictive covenants
• Termination authority
• Integration into core business functions
• How the model will appear to a jury

Independent contractor status is determined by economic reality. That reality is shaped by operations, not labels.

If your agreements say “independent contractor” but your workflows say “employee,” the contract will not save you.

Why Acting Now Matters

Public comment on the Proposed Rule is open through April 28, 2026. The final rule may look different. It may shift again in the next administration.

Waiting for regulatory stability is not a strategy.

The prudent move is to stress-test your model under both frameworks and determine:

• Where exposure exists today
• How a plaintiff’s lawyer would frame the case
• Whether your documentation aligns with actual practice
• Whether structural adjustments can reduce risk without breaking the business model

Independent Contractor Risk Audit

If your company engages independent contractors, now is the time to:

• Audit agreements and compensation structures
• Evaluate control and supervision practices
• Assess exposure under federal and state law
• Review notice, deduction, and payment compliance
• Align operational reality with legal positioning

Lieb at Law, P.C. represents businesses, founders, and executives in high-stakes misclassification and wage-and-hour litigation. We also conduct proactive classification audits designed to reduce litigation exposure before a claim is filed.

Regulatory instability is not a defense to misclassification. It is a reason to prepare.

To schedule a confidential strategy session, contact Lieb at Law, P.C.

*attorney advertising

Circuit Court of Appeals Gives Plaintiffs a Tactical Way Out of Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses

In Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a pre-dispute arbitration clause was invalid for an entire case because just one claim in the case involved sexual harassment based on a broad interpretation of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 ("EFAA"). Specifically, EFAA 402(a) provides that "at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute . . . no predispute arbitration agreement . . . shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute." At issue in this case was the definition of the term "case," and the Circuit Court defined that term as "encompassing a plaintiff's entire suit." Specifically, the Appellate Court held that "where a plaintiff brings multiple claims in a single suit against a party with whom she has an otherwise-valid arbitration agreement, and one of those claims alleges a 'sexual assault dispute' or a 'sexual harassment dispute,' the EFAA renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable with respect to each of the claims that comprise her case." As a result, a Plaintiff seeking to tactically avoid arbitration can plead a sexual harassment claim as well as their core claims to avoid the suit. However, an entity seeking to compel arbitration can counter, by not arguing that the other claims must still be arbitrated, but by arguing that the sexual harassment claim was not alleged under the applicable pleading standard in the first instance and nothing must be arbitrated. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court left "for another day the question of whether the Yost standard (federal pleading standard), the Diaz-Roa standard (Bell v. Hood’s jurisdictional standard), or some other standard represents the correct interpretation of the EFAA" when determining if the sexual harassment claim was properly alleged. There is going to be a lot of litigation coming on this issue because companies are not going to want to give up their pre-dispute arbitration clauses because creative Plaintiff's counsel have tactically negated arbitration obligations by loosely alleging a weak sexual harassment claim. 

Arbitration clauses are no longer bulletproof.

If your company relies on pre-dispute arbitration agreements, or you are challenging one, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to assess your exposure and strategy now.

NYC Enacts Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law

There is a new civil cause of action in NYC (Administrative Code of the City of New York section 10-1104) for crimes of violence motivated by gender that occurred prior to January 9, 2022. Now, any person claiming to be injured by a party who committed, directed, enabled, participated in, or conspired in the commission of a crime of violence motivated by gender may bring a civil claim against that party. This allows survivors to bring claims even if those claims would have otherwise been barred by the statute of limitations. However, the revitalization of claims is not permanent where claims brought under this law must now be commenced within 18 months of January 28, 2026. So, act immediately if this impacts you. Also, if you brought a claim between March 1, 2023 and March 1, 2025 that would satisfy the requirements of a cause of action under this section, you may now amend or refile (if dismissed) their claim to add a cause of action under this section. Finally, you can recover compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate. 

HUD Steps Back on Disparate Impact: Why Courts, Not Agencies, Should Set the Rules

The Federal Government just made a smart move in proposing to remove HUD's discrimination effect regulations in housing (under the Fair Housing Act), which now exist at 24 CFR 100.5(b). Specifically, the notice of rulemaking in the Federal Register explains that setting standards to determine if discrimination occurred is better left to the Courts, who ruled on the issue of disparate impact discrimination and set standards in the 2015 case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Therefore, as HUD puts it, as to its regulations, it has "determined they are unnecessary." Not only are they unnecessary, but have regulations on top of case law is confusing where landlords and brokers must look to varying sources to know how to behave and what is disallowed. Hopefully more regulations that establish standards to determine breaches of law will be deleted and we can go back to a less regulated world with more case holdings guiding behavior based on the specific facts at hand.

Have questions about fair housing compliance, discrimination claims, or enforcement risk? Talk to a litigation team that lives in the case law. Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. 

DEI, the False Claims Act, and the New Enforcement Reality for Employers

National Law Review article published this week highlights a significant shift in federal enforcement strategy: the U.S. Department of Justice is now actively using the False Claims Act (FCA) to scrutinize workplace DEI initiatives at companies that receive federal funds or hold government contracts.

Read the article here:
https://lnkd.in/ee_mvzCg

According to the article, DOJ is issuing civil investigative demands to major employers and treating DEI-related inquiries as potential fraud investigations, not policy disagreements. The focus is no longer limited to what a DEI policy says on paper, but how it operates in practice.

For employers and the attorneys, this represents a material change in exposure.

The FCA has traditionally been used to police false billing and fraudulent payment claims. DOJ is now advancing a novel theory: that maintaining certain DEI practices while certifying compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws can constitute a false or misleading claim for payment. This approach has been reinforced by executive orders, DOJ guidance, and public statements from senior DOJ leadership.

Whether courts ultimately endorse this theory remains to be seen. In the meantime, investigations are underway, and the cost of responding to a CID alone can be significant. Documentation, internal decision-making, and how DEI concepts are operationalized are now front and center.

This is exactly why Attorney Andrew Lieb recently served as a featured instructor for a New York State Bar Association CLE titled Risk-Informed DEI: Balancing Legal Exposure and Organizational Culture. The program was designed to address the reality employers and counsel are facing now.

The CLE focuses on practical, defensible frameworks for advising employers in this environment. That includes identifying where FCA risk may arise, understanding how regulators evaluate DEI implementation rather than labels, and developing documentation and compliance strategies that align with both legal obligations and organizational goals.

For attorneys advising employers, and for organizations that contract with or receive funding from the federal government, DEI is no longer a purely cultural initiative. It is a legal risk management issue that requires careful, informed handling.

Details on the NYSBA CLE, including registration and CLE credit information, are available here:
https://lnkd.in/eHK9FHfk

As enforcement continues to evolve, employers should not assume that rebranding or surface-level changes are sufficient. The question regulators are asking is how programs actually function, how decisions are made, and what representations are being made to the government. Getting that analysis right now can make the difference later.

NYS' Deceptive Acts and Practices Law Expanded and the AG will be Coming for Business

NYS' Deceptive Acts and Practices Law has been expanded to include "Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices" and it is now called the FAIR Act - "fostering affordability and integrity through reasonable (FAIR) business practices act" - with the changes being effective on February 17, 2026. The biggest change being that the law's, GBL 349, consumer-oriented requirement has been dropped as a requisite for the Attorney General to bring a claim, but not for private claims. Under the amended law, a business' act is now also violated for being "unfair" and "abusive." 

Unfair means that the act "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury which is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition." 

Abusive means if: 

"(i) "it materially interferes with the ability of a person to understand a term or condition of a product or service; or

(ii) it takes unreasonable advantage of:

(A) a lack of understanding on the part of a person of the material risk, costs, or conditions of a product or service;

(B) the inability of a person to protect such person's interests in selecting or using a product or service; or

(C) the reasonable reliance by a person on a person engaging in the act or practice to act in the relying person's interests." 

Businesses hit with claims under this amended law, remember YOU HAVE FIVE BUSINESS DAYS after receipt of a certified mail from the attorney general to advise as to why an action or proceeding should not be instituted. 

If you receive a certified letter from the NY Attorney General under the FAIR Act, you have five business days. Call Lieb at Law immediately.

*attorney advertising

Employment Discrimination Law Updated in NYS - Discriminatory Effect is Enough

On December 19, 2025, the New York State Human Rights Law was extended by S8338, in adding a new subdivision 5-a to Executive Law 296, which provides for proving discrimination in employment without discriminatory intent, just discriminatory effect. Under the law, a discriminatory effect means that a practice "actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of persons, because of their membership in a class protected under this section."  

To prove a case under subdivision 5-a, known as disparate impact discrimination, there is now a burden shifting formula:

• First, the Complainant must prove that "a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect."
• Second, the Respondent must prove "that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." 
• Third, the Complaint must prove "that the business necessity could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect."

If a workplace policy disproportionately harms a protected group, intent no longer matters. Talk to Lieb at Law about your exposure or your claim.

*attorney advertising

Is McDonnell Douglas Dead in NYS' Human Rights Law?

On December 19, 2025, NYS enacted A4040A and S8338, which defines standards for disparate impact discrimination claims in housing and employment respectively, but each also slipped in an easter egg, at new Executive Law 296(5-a)(e), which dramatically changes how disparate treatment discrimination claims will be defended under state law. Specifically, the subsection provides that "[a] demonstration that a practice is supported by a legally sufficient justification, as defined in paragraph (c) of this subdivision, may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination." To be certain, under McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting, which has been utilized to prove intentional discrimination since 1973, the defense of a case was the submission of proof of a non-discriminatory reason for the challenged act. It appears that defense is now dead in NYS - this is a seismic change in NYS discrimination law with ripples unknown. 

If you’re bringing or defending a discrimination case in New York, the rules just changed. Speak with Lieb at Law before you rely on outdated defenses.

*attorney advertising

Housing Discrimination Law Updated in NYS - Discriminatory Effect is Enough

On December 19, 2025, the New York State Human Rights Law was extended by A4040A, in adding a new subdivision 5-a to Executive Law 296, which provides for proving discrimination in housing without discriminatory intent, just discriminatory effect. Under the law, a discriminatory effect means that a practice "actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of persons or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, age, disability, marital status, status as a victim of domestic violence, lawful source of income or familial."

To prove a case under subdivision 5-a, known as disparate impact discrimination, there is now a burden shifting formula:

• First, the Complainant must prove that "a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect."
• Second, the Respondent must prove "that the challenged practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent."
• Third, the Complaint must prove "that the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged practice could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect."

If a housing policy shuts people out without saying it outright, that can now be illegal. Talk to a fair housing litigator at Lieb at Law, P.C. 

*attorney advertising

Training Repayment Just Became Illegal in New York - Clawbacks Limited in NYS by the Trapped at Work Act

New York State has enacted the Trapped at Work Act by A584C, effective on December 19, 2025. This law expressly precludes employers from recovering on clawbacks for reimbursement of the cost of training and the law extends to protect not just employees, but also independent contractors, interns and many other workers. To be certain, while the law expressly prohibits and renders void any employee promissory note that is required as a condition of employment, it also excludes from its auspices, while expressly permitting, agreements under which a worker has to repay "sums advanced to such worker by the employer" that were not relevant to training. That said, the law provides workers with the ability to recover attorneys' fees if they prevail by rendering a promissory note sought to be enforced by the employer through suit, void. Additionally, the government can seek $1K to $5K per violation fines for violations. 

Facing a training clawback or promissory note? Talk to a New York litigator at Lieb at Law, P.C. before you pay a dime.

New NY Foreclosure Law Forces Lenders to Apply Your Payments

A very important foreclosure law bill, Assembly Bill A2739, which we discussed at How New York Assembly Bill A2739 Could Give Homeowners a Leg Up in Foreclosure Defense was signed and is effective as of December 12, 2025.

Now, homeowners in default a real edge against foreclosure. The law requires mortgage lenders to accept and immediately apply payments made in reliance on a payoff statement – no more excuses, no more “we’ll hold it in suspense.” As long as you pay where and how your lender says to, your money counts toward your loan balance.

If you’re facing foreclosure and want to make sure every payment counts, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. – because now, your money can finally work for you.

Law on Access to Adjoining Property for Improvements or Repairs Updated in NYS

Starting on December 5, 2025, RPAPL 881 offers a new framework under S3799C for a property owner seeking a court ordered license in a special proceeding to access their neighbor's property in order to make improvements or repairs. As the bill jacket explains, sometimes "owners and their neighbors cannot work out a solution without going to court" and the prior law, from 1968, is now being updated to be more predictable. The framework makes it easier to name lessees into the proceeding as their rights will be adversely impacted and they are a necessary party to such lawsuits. It also clarifies that a licensee can be obtained for a preconstruction survey to document the existing condition of the property, to address vibration, cracks, optical monitoring devices, protective coverings for the property, scaffolding, bracing, building supports, flashing, and construction staging necessary to complete work, amongst others. The new law also requires the licensee to maintain commercial general liability insurance for damages to persons or property with the adjoining owner as an additional insured. Finally, to the good stuff, "[t]he licensee shall be required to reasonably compensate the adjoining owner for the loss of use and enjoyment of the adjoining premises including diminution in value." plus, "to reimburse the adjoining owner for reasonable fees incurred in connection with the review of relevant documents for the installation, maintenance, inspection, repair, replacement or removal of devices, structures, materials or equipment on the adjoining property."

If you’re facing a construction-access fight with a neighbor, or you need to secure compensation for loss of use, we handle RPAPL 881 litigation. Contact Lieb at Law to protect your rights and your property.

*attorney advertising

How New York Assembly Bill A2739 Could Give Homeowners a Leg Up in Foreclosure Defense

As of December 8, 2025, Assembly Bill A2739 has cleared the Senate and Assembly and is now sitting on Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk. If she signs it, this little-known bill could give homeowners in default a real edge against foreclosure. The law would require mortgage lenders to accept and immediately apply payments made in reliance on a payoff statement – no more excuses, no more “we’ll hold it in suspense.” As long as you pay where and how your lender says to, your money counts toward your loan balance. That’s a big deal because right now, lenders can refuse partial payments or take them without actually reducing what you owe.

Here’s the exciting part: combine this law with the state’s mandatory settlement conferences, and homeowners suddenly have a legally backed, game-changing strategy to slow down foreclosure. You can make installment payments to chip away at your default and potentially save your home – all without needing a full payoff, a modification, or a short sale. It’s a way to fight back while saving time, money, and headaches.

If the bill becomes law, homeowners should be prepared for possible delays or added complexity when requesting payoff statements and making payments. If you’re facing foreclosure and want to make sure every payment counts, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. – because now, your money can finally work for you.

*attorney advertising

Brokerages Are Now on the Hook for Agent Telemarketing: What Hollis v. eXp Means for You

Every real estate brokerage should be watching Hollis v. eXp Realty closely, where the court denied eXp Realty’s motion to dismiss, allowing Plaintiff's claims of both direct and vicarious liability to move forward. In this case, eXp is being held responsible for both their own unsolicited telemarketing (like, cold calling and cold texts) and more importantly, the unsolicited telemarketing undertaken by their agents/associated licensees.

The case involves allegations on unsolicited calls made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), which comes with steep penalties of $500 to $1,500 per unlawful call or text. Historically, many real estate brokerages believed that they were insulated from liability because agents/associated licensees were treated as independent contractors so they were not responsible under vicarious liability. However, in the Court's latest ruling, a clear shift occurred where brokerages were told that they can be held accountable when agents/associated licensees, who they supervise, violate the TCPA.

After the denial of their motion-to-dismiss, eXp Realty and the agent defendant filed their answers, and the case is now moving through the discovery process. 

Every brokerage should treat this case as a wake-up call. Now is the time to act. Implement or update TCPA compliance policies, train agents/associated licensees on proper lead-generation practices, prohibit unsolicited autodialed calls and texts, audit marketing systems, CRMs, and third-party vendors, and document compliance and supervision efforts. 

Failing to supervise agents/associated licensees marketing activities is no longer an option, brokerages can be on the hook for agent misconduct.

If your brokerage needs a TCPA compliance audit or guidance on agent supervision, contact Lieb at Law, P.C.

*attorney advertising

What Brokers Need to Know About NY’s New Restrictive Covenant Removal Law

Starting on June 3, 2026, NYS A1820A requires sellers of real estate to remove restrictive covenants that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, national origin, source of income or ancestry. To do this, Real Property Law 327-a requires sellers of servient property (where the covenant has its effect) to submit "a restrictive covenant modification document" to the County Clerk and the purchaser at or prior to closing. A restrictive covenant is a private zoning agreement that (in this scenario) runs with the land. 

Additionally, by June 3, 2027, Condos, Co-ops, and HOAs must "delete or amend any covenants, conditions and restrictions that exist in a recorded document which discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, martial status, disability, national origin, source of income, or ancestry." 

If discriminatory restrictions surface in a deal, our litigation team handles these cases. Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. for a case evaluation. 

*attorney advertising

You Can't be Fired in NYS for Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation

On December 5, 2025, NYS passed A4898, which amends the New York State Human Rights Law at Executive Law 296(7) to expressly prohibit retaliation against an individual who requests a reasonable accommodation. 

The Bill Jacket explains the scenario which this new law seeks to address as being that "an employee must be granted an accommodation in the workplace, but an employer claims they can legally be fired for asking for it in the first place." This law closes that loophole in all scenarios where an accommodation is required under the law, including at a "workplace, housing, and in certain public settings such as health clinics, hospitals, restaurants, government buildings, retail stores, and more" because "it is a violation under the Human Rights Law to deny a request for an accommodation based on disability (Executive Law § 296(3)(6), (2-a)(d), (14),(10), pregnancy-related condition (Executive Law § 296(3)(a)), religious observances (Executive Law § 296(10)), or domestic violence victim status (Executive Law § 296(22)(6)(1))."

If you’re facing retaliation for asking for an accommodation, Lieb at Law, P.C. handles these cases. Talk to our discrimination team today.

*attorney advertising

Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) Is Now Retroactive. Here’s What That Means for NY Foreclosures.

The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), which was enacted in December 2022, stops mortgage lenders from abusing the 6-year statute of limitations in foreclosure actions. FAPA achieves this by confirming that once a lender accelerates a mortgage, demanding the entire loan balance, the acceleration is not automatically revoked (de-accelerated) if the lender voluntarily discontinues the action, thereby preventing the lender from attempting to start a new foreclosure case years later.

However, what happens when this acceleration / de-acceleration stuff happened before 2023? 

 

The NYS Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), just ruled that FAPA has "retroactive effect" in Van Dyke v U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn. to the extent that it is invoked in a case where "a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not been enforced." 

So, even for older cases, FAPA needs to be evaluated. 

If you have such a loan, you should consider bringing a quiet title action to remove the mortgage from your homeownership. If you’re facing a foreclosure or challenging an old acceleration, get legal help now from Lieb at Law, P.C. Our litigation team can review your timeline and use FAPA to protect your home. 

*attorney advertising

NY’s New False Advertising Amendment Puts Businesses at Risk

On January 20, 2026, NYS plugged a real problem with false advertising throughout the State by amending General Business Law § 350-a, by A4575, to add new subsection (2), which now provides:

Any written or electronic communication which simulates a document authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, agency of this state or a political subdivision thereof, or of another state or official governmental entity, foreign or domestic, or which creates a false impression as to such document's source, authorization or approval, shall be considered false advertising unless the person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, has received express permission from such court, official, or agency for the use of such document. This subdivision shall be construed to prohibit any false representation or implication, written or verbal, that a person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, selling a commodity or service is vouched for, approved of, bonded by, operating with or on behalf of, or otherwise affiliated with this state or a political subdivision thereof, or of another state or official governmental entity, foreign or domestic, unless such person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, has received express permission from such state or political subdivision for such affiliation.

Businesses are now on notice to stop stating or implying that they have anything to do with being approved by government, unless they receive permission to do so. If you've ever gotten something about obtaining your deed for your house to avoid deed theft, you know exactly what this is all about. So often citizens are manipulated by companies who appear official when they are not. Under the statute, any person injured by such false advertising may bring an action to enjoin the unlawful act or practice and recover damages. Specifically, the statute (GBL § 350-d) provides for recovery of actual damages or $5,000, whichever is greater. Additionally, courts have discretion to increase the award of damages to an amount not exceeding three times the actual damages, up to $15,000, if the defendant is found to have willfully or knowingly violated the statute. Reasonable attorney's fees may also be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff. To make matters worse for businesses who falsely advertise, class actions for actual damages under GBL § 350-a are permissible, provided the plaintiffs waive claims for minimum or punitive damages. 

Businesses better audit their advertising today.  Facing a false-advertising class action? Get a defense team that actually knows GBL § 350-a. Contact Lieb at Law.

*attorney advertising