On February 15, 2024, The New York State Court of Appeals issued their decision in the Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights. 

We now know that the "threat of litigation" may support a retaliation claim under the New York State Human Rights law (Executive Law 296). So, if you notice a claim of discrimination and the perpetrator then threatens suing you for other reasons, you likely have a retaliation claim in NYS. 

That's why it is imperative that victims immediately notice perpetrators of their claims in a notice of preservation, notice to insurance, and demand letter. This is how you protect yourself. 

To read the decision, click here.

Andrew Lieb, a Long Island attorney and legal analyst at Lieb at Law PC, recently spoke with CBS Radio regarding two important Supreme Court rulings. 

First, Lieb discussed the ruling on student debt forgiveness where the court disagreed with President Biden's plan for debt forgiveness. Lieb summarized the situation: "We're talking about this HEROES Act and the Biden administration has relied on this act...And the question becomes does the HEROES Act give the Biden administration the power they want?" The Supreme Court's decision effectively denies the administration's ability to forgive debt based on this Act.

In the second case, Lieb shed light on LGBT discrimination by explaining that it was a freedom of speech case rather than a discrimination case, despite the headlines stating otherwise. The case involved a Christian graphic artist refusing to make specific websites about same-sex couples rather than refusing to work for LGBT people overall. Lieb clarified that the ruling does not permit the denial of services based on sexual orientation. Rather, it emphasizes that "certain creative people speak through their creativity...while you have to serve anyone...all she said is that when she writes the cake, she's not going to make a product with her speech that goes against what she wants to do." This distinction emphasizes that the court's ruling protects creative expression and not discriminatory practices.

Attorney Andrew Lieb recently delivered a comprehensive legal interpretation during his appearance on Scripps News, offering deep insights into the indictment case against former President Trump. Here are the key takeaways from his commentary:

The Importance of Discovery:

According to Lieb, the stage of litigation following arraignment will be an approximate year-long discovery. Discovery is an information exchange process where the defense counsel has the right to view what the evidence supporting the prosecutor's case, allowing them to prepare their defense based on the evidence at hand.

Anticipated Motions: 

In the context of this case, Lieb predicts a series of motions to suppress and dismiss the evidence presented by the prosecutors. This process of challenging the evidence is critical for the defense in ensuring any evidence used in the trial is obtained properly and is relevant.

Role of the Defense Team:

Lieb believes the defense team's immediate task should be to take charge of the case, turning it from a political show into a serious criminal defense case. This involves ensuring their client refrains from making potentially damaging public speeches and focusing on evaluating the evidence at hand.

Fourth Amendment Implications:

Lieb noted that improper acquisition of evidence could lead to motions for suppression based on Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. This approach could potentially impact what evidence is deemed admissible in the trial.

Implications for Future Proceedings:

As the case unfolds, Lieb anticipates many of the decisions made by the judge to be appealed to the 11th circuit, which may set precedent for future high-profile cases.

In a recent interview with LiveNow from Fox, Andrew Lieb, an attorney at Lieb at Law, offered insight into former President Donald Trump's federal arraignment. The case at hand revolves around accusations that Trump misused classified documents and obstructed justice.

Lieb explained that the investigation was being led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. The probe's scope includes an examination of Trump's handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and the events of January 6th. However, the current arraignment focuses solely on the former.

While the investigation began under Judge Canon, the arraignment itself will be overseen by Magistrate Judge Goodman. The chief contention is what Trump did with classified documents after leaving office, including his alleged obstruction of returning these documents and the potential violation of the Espionage Act.

Trump reportedly paid someone to record conversations in which he acknowledged the classified status of certain documents. This revelation is a significant component of the indictment. The maximum penalty for these charges amounts to 400 years, although Lieb was clear to specify that this is a theoretical maximum, not a sentencing guideline.

The arraignment process was outlined as a relatively straightforward procedure. It typically involves the entry of a plea, and in Trump's case, the expectation is a plea of not guilty. However, the process of capturing images and video will be heavily restricted within federal court, and there will be no mug shots due to perceived security risks.

Moving forward, Lieb anticipates Trump will face trial, and given federal prosecutors' historically high conviction rates, he sees it likely that the former President could face prison time. It’s also worth noting that this arraignment is only one part of several potential legal issues for Trump, with potential grand jury proceedings in DC and investigations in Georgia yet to play out.

Addressing the crowds gathered outside the courthouse, Lieb expressed hopes for peaceful protests. He reiterated that it's essential for the judiciary to run its course without violent interruption, regardless of public opinion. He pointed out that Trump would have a jury largely composed of his peers in Florida, a state with a Republican majority.