LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Mold Licensing Law for Assessment, Remediation, and Abatement

On January 1, 2016 the amended Article 32 of the Labor Law became effective thereby making it “unlawful for any person to engage, advertise or hold themselves out as a mold assessor, remediation contractor, or abatement worker unless they have a valid mold license, issued by the commissioner, for the type of work they will be performing. Individuals who do so may be subject to a civil penalty.”

Read the full article by Andrew Lieb, Esq. in the Suffolk Lawyer.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Lieb at Law is expanding and searching for a Real Estate Attorney to join the collaborative team!

Real Estate Attorney

Lieb at Law, P.C., is seeking the next Attorney to help raise the bar and lead our profession in a collaborative, inspiring and technologically advanced setting. The firm offers an environment that supports personal and professional growth without micromanagement or dogmatic resistance to fresh and innovative ideas. Driven attorneys who prove their competence are quickly rewarded with responsibility and opportunities beyond that offered for similarly experienced attorneys at major firms. Competence trumps experience and career growth is limited only by your own ability, ambition and desire to learn and evolve. Career advancement includes partner-track.

We are looking for a potential star that is intellectually driven, who does not cut corners, has a fresh approach, thinks outside-the-box and can provide tangible fact-driven support. Our firm motto is ‘no case; no statute; no talk’. This means that fluff will not get you very far at Lieb at Law, P.C. We challenge you to provide supporting anecdotal evidence of why you would thrive in a collaborative firm that consists of 6 Attorneys, 3 Law Clerks, 2 Business Managers and 1 Paralegal.

This role will start off working across all aspects of the firm’s real estate practice inclusive of foreclosure litigation, mortgage default workouts, real estate transactions, landlord / tenant transactions and evictions, land use and business transactions. Then, the candidate is charged with developing their personal niche as their carrier evolves.

This position is located in Center Moriches, which is in Suffolk County within the Riverhead / Westhampton Area. Clients span across Long Island, New York City and Westchester.

Compensation: Commensurate with experience, includes full benefits package.

About The Firm: Lieb at Law’s mission is to serve as an indispensable strategic advisor to our clients, helping to minimize risk while maximizing profitability, and aggressively litigate with leading solutions. The firm’s transactional team ensures that contractual language is driven by qualitative data from the litigation field. Lieb at Law’s work product is a derivative of embracing education and technology. Lieb at Law is fully committed to our technology-based collaborative approach and believes that this operational model drives our success.

Beyond utilizing legal research platforms to enable immediate access to the most recent case law and publications, the firm’s systems include cloud-based file and time management software with additional proprietary programs. As a result, Lieb Attorneys have instantaneous access to client records anywhere, even on their smartphones in court and at closings.


To Apply:
Email Cover Letter, Resume and Salary Requirements to careers@liebatlaw.com



- See more at: http://lawjobs.com/job/real-estate-attorney-center-moriches-new-york-164526#sthash.EkMA9Mye.dpuf

Monday, April 04, 2016

New HUD Guidance - The Intersection of Disparate Impact Discrimination and Criminal Background Checks

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that disparate impact discrimination claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. For a refresher, read my blog post about the decision here. In sum, landlords may be liable for discrimination if the effect of a facially neutral housing action has a disproportionate impact on a protected class.

Today, the office of general counsel to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a memorandum offering guidance regarding the potential discriminatory effects of taking an adverse housing action against a tenant based upon their criminal history. A link to the memorandum can be found here. The logline for this memorandum is that HUD believes taking an adverse housing action based upon criminal history may constitute discrimination on the basis of race or national origin because of its disparate impact on those protected classes.

The memorandum examines the three-step burden-shifting test a court would analyze in a claim brought by a tenant who alleges they were discriminated based upon their criminal history. The stated purpose of the memorandum is facially neutral, addressing “how the discriminatory effects and disparate treatment methods of proof apply in Fair Housing Act cases in which a housing provider justifies an adverse housing action… based on an individual’s criminal history.” The practical effect of the memorandum, however, is that HUD has armed plaintiff’s attorneys with a new theory of liability that all landlord’s should understand.

The three-step burden-shifting test requires that a plaintiff first prove that the complained of practice has a discriminatory effect. If the plaintiff is successful, the defendant must then prove that the challenged practice has a legally sufficient justification. Finally, if the defendant proves a legally sufficient justification, a plaintiff must then prove that there is a less discriminatory alternative available. The HUD memorandum examines each question and attempts to offer guidance in turn.

Discriminatory Effect

HUD submits that national statistics stand for the conclusion that “[n]ationally, racial and ethnic minorities face disproportionately high rates of arrest and incarceration. Without drawing its own conclusion, HUD posits that these statistics, along with other evidence, could provide sufficient proof for the legal position that taking an adverse housing action, such as refusing to enter or renew a lease based upon criminal history, has a disparate impact on African Americans or Hispanics.

Legally Sufficient Justification

If a plaintiff is successful in proving that an adverse housing action on the basis of criminal history has a discriminatory effect on racial or ethnic minorities, a defendant would then be compelled to provide a legally sufficient justification for the action. In analyzing this factor, HUD acknowledges that “resident safety and protecting property are often considered to be among the fundamental responsibilities of a housing provider”. However, HUD does push back by requiring that a defendant submit evidence supporting the conclusion that a policy of discriminating on the basis of criminal history furthers the stated purpose of protecting residents and property. That is, a landlord cannot blindly rely upon this justification in every situation. HUD suggests that landlords consider each potential tenant on a case by case basis instead of having a blanket policy of refusing to lease to anyone with a criminal history

For example, HUD submits that the existence of a prior arrest, which does not carry a subsequent conviction, “has very little, if any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct. An arrest shows nothing more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended of an offense.” HUD concludes that “because arrest records do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct… the fact of an arrest is not a reliable basis upon which to assess the potential risk to resident safety or property posed by a particular individual.”

Moving further, HUD submits that even a criminal conviction does not automatically create a legally sufficient justification. “A housing provider that imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any conviction record – no matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then – will be unable to meet this burden [of proving a legally sufficient justification].” HUD suggests that a “housing provider must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not.”

Less Discriminatory Alternative

If a landlord proves a legally sufficient justification for the challenged policy or act, the plaintiff may still prevail by proving that a less discriminatory alternative exists. Here, HUD offers no substantiated guidance but submits that the analysis must be performed on a case by case basis. The only suggestion proffered by HUD is that a landlord may consider delaying a criminal history investigation until after a tenant has already qualified financially.

Conclusion

In the end, HUD has taken an aggressive position that all landlords must remain cognizant of when making housing decisions. When forming a policy of utilizing criminal background checks, a landlord should ensure that their policy is “tailored to serve the housing provider’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and take[s] into consideration such factors as the type of the crime and the length of the time since conviction.” A landlord who has no evidence that its policy or action is grounded in nondiscriminatory justification will be vulnerable to complaints. 

At the very least, HUD has made it clear that blanket prohibitions on any person with a criminal history will face legal challenges based upon the Supreme Court’s upholding of the disparate impact theory of discrimination.

Monday, March 28, 2016

Top 10 Real Estate Laws of 2015

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Notice to all Real Estate Brokers and Salespeople from the Department of State, New York

Monday, March 14, 2016

Real Estate Brokerage Regulatory Updates - 2/26/16 NYS Board of Real Estate meeting summary

On 2/26/16 the NYS Board of Real Estate continued its mission of optimizing the regulation of real estate brokers in our state by holding its meeting in NYC, Buffalo and Albany. To remind real estate brokers and salespersons, the public is welcome at these meetings where the public can bring comments from the floor. It’s encouraged that Lieb School students attend these meetings to have your voices heard. 

"[T]he Board has general authority to promulgate rules and regulations affecting real estate brokers and salespersons in order to administer and effectuate the purposes of Article 12-A of the Real Property Law."

A complete video of the meeting is available on YouTube.

In summary, the following was discussed:
The following pending regulations have moved forward and have one more required round of approval prior to being published in the State Register for public comment:


Pending Regulations:
1) Commingling of principal funds
2) Compensation of brokers
3) Additional license safety course
4) Changing the amount of hours from a course from 60 minutes required to 50 minutes required
5) Advertising regulations
6) Updates to the broker approval course

Next, the meeting shifted to a focus on Fair Housing in furtherance of the Governor's Fair Housing Initiative from February of this year. In support thereof, 19 NYCRR 175.17 was proposed to be amended and unanimously approved by vote. The new amended regulation will both broaden the protected classes to include all Federal, State, and Locally Protected Classes and clarify that a violation of Fair Housing, as determined by any local agency or a court of competent jurisdiction, shall be presumptive evidence of untrustworthiness in real estate brokerage wherein the Department of State may revoke a license. 

In all, the meeting's apparent goal was to increase awareness and enforcement of Fair Housing, to alert agents about upcoming educational awareness and outreach planned by the Department of State, and to renew the State's focus and attention onto discrimination through a collaboration between the Department of State and the Department of Human Rights. 

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Court of Appeals Clarifies Trivial Defect Doctrine

The Court of Appeals in Beltz v. City of Yonkers effectively established the Trivial Defect Doctrine in 1895, a staple in the modern defense attorney’s playbook. Therein, the court recognized that no walkway could be kept so perfectly safe so as to preclude the possibility of an accident and accordingly held that “when … the defect is so slight that no careful or prudent man would reasonably anticipate any danger from its existence … the question of defendant’s responsibility is one of law.” Perhaps shocking to a modern practitioner, the Beltz court found that a two and a half inch deep, 26 inch long and seven inch wide depression in a sidewalk was not an actionable defect. Ever since, New York courts have struggled to define when a defect in a walkway is actionable.

The full article written by Dennis C. Valet, Esq. has been published in The Suffolk Lawyer and can be found here

Lieb at Law Seeks 2016 Law School Graduates To Join Complex Litigation Team

Position: Associate Attorney (Entry Level)

Lieb at Law, P.C., is seeking the next Associate Attorney to help raise the bar and lead our profession in a collaborative, inspiring and technologically advanced setting. 

This position is ideal for an aspiring litigator with a winning attitude.  Gain hands-on litigation experience inclusive of appearances at conferences, oral arguments, depositions, trials, negotiations, mediation, arbitration, motion practice and appeals.  You will be exposed to Complex Commercial, Corporate and Real Estate Litigation; Plaintiff Personal Injury; Outside Counsel Corporate Representation; Real Estate Brokerage Litigation; Foreclosure Defense, Estate Litigation and more.  

The firm offers an educational environment that supports personal and professional growth without micromanagement or dogmatic resistance to fresh and innovative ideas.  Attorneys who prove their competence are quickly rewarded with responsibility and opportunities beyond that offered for similarly experienced attorneys at major firms. Competence trumps experience and career growth is limited only by your own ability, ambition and desire to learn and evolve. Career advancement includes partner track. 

We are looking for a potential star that is intellectually driven, who does not cut corners, fresh approach, outside-the-box thinking, and who can provide tangible fact-driven support. Our firm motto is “no case, no statute, no talk”. This means that fluff will not get you far in our firm. We challenge you to provide supporting anecdotal evidence of why you would thrive in a collaborative litigation firm that consists of 6 Attorneys, 3 Law Clerks, 2 Business Managers and 1 Paralegal.


This position is in Center Moriches which is located in Suffolk County in the Riverhead / Westhampton Area. Clients span across Long Island, New York City and Westchester. 

About The Firm: Lieb at Law’s mission is to serve as an indispensable strategic advisor to our clients, helping to minimize risk while maximizing profitability, and aggressively litigating with leading solutions. The firm’s transactional team ensures that contractual language is driven by qualitative data from the litigation field. Lieb at Law’s work product is a derivative of embracing education and technology.  Lieb at Law is fully committed to our technology based collaborative approach and believe that this operational model drives our success.

Beyond utilizing multiple legal research platforms to enable immediate access to the most recent case law and publications, the firm’s systems include cloud-based file and time management software with additional proprietary programs. As a result, Lieb Attorneys have instantaneous access to client records anywhere, even on their smartphones in court. 

Compensation: Commensurate with experience. Full benefits package.


To apply, email your resume and cover letter to careers@liebatlaw.com 

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Fair Housing Act ONLINE | 4 CE Credits | ONLINE Video Class | Instructed by Andrew Lieb, Esq.

We know that you will never want education from anywhere else after you try it!
FINALLY A FAIR HOUSING CLASS THAT IS ENTERTAINING!!!

4 CE Credits
Satisfies DOS Licensing Requirement
Instructed by Andrew Lieb, Esq.
* Works on PCs, MACs, IPADs, Tablets

Summary: Be warned - Discrimination in housing is very serious and exposes real estate agents to immense liability and the potential loss of their license. In fact, discrimination is so serious that the Department of State only requires this topic to be included in the requisite 22.5 hours of continuing education, but requires no other topic. This course is not a general survey course on discrimination, instead it explains a very specific law: The Fair Housing Act, which sets the nationwide standard for anti-discrimination laws in residential housing. The seminar will detail specific cases involving real estate agents who violated the Act. Be prepared for this course to hit home.

The Fair Housing Act ONLINE is an adaptation of the live class The Fair Housing Act offered by Lieb School. This 4 hour distance education course is designed to teach New York real estate brokers and salespersons how to perform their job without exposure to lawsuits.

This course is instructed by premiere lecturer and attorney Andrew M. Lieb, Esq., MPH, who combines video footage of live class segments with visuals, study guides, and quizzes in order to optimize your understanding of the intense materials. It is delivered in an asynchronous model to allow for accessibility whenever and wherever you find convenient while also offering note-taking and in-class comment features to provide opportunities for feedback, questions, and discussions.

Unlike the 3-credit live class, this course accounts for 4 credits of the total 2-year requirement of 22.5 credits for license renewal, thereby allowing you to satisfy more credits with just one class.

*** THIS COURSE SATISFIES THE ONLY MANDATORY CLASS REQUIREMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OF NY (DOS) FOR AT LEAST 3 HOURS OF INSTRUCTION PERTAINING TO FAIR HOUSING AND / OR DISCRIMINATION ***

Friday, January 15, 2016

Federal Government Investigates All-Cash Luxury Real Estate Deals

The federal government announced this week that it will soon monitor and investigate all-cash purchases of luxury residential real estate in excess of $3 million in Manhattan and in excess of $1 million in Miami-Dade County for money laundering and other illicit activity.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of Treasury, will lead the investigation. The investigation is targeting all-cash luxury real estate purchases because many such purchases are currently being conducted through “shell” companies used to shield the identities of natural persons and hide assets in a transaction. FinCEN’s Geographic Targeting Order (GTO), which is effective from March 1, 2016 through August 27, 2016, will require title insurance companies to identify and report natural persons behind these shell companies so that law enforcement investigators can use that information to weaken the ability of individuals to disguise their identities in money laundering schemes.

Since 2006, FinCEN has worked to establish an accountable mortgage industry by conducting studies regarding suspected mortgage fraud and money laundering and by issuing orders of investigation for certain financial institutions and transactions across the country.

FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery declared that “cash purchases present a more complex gap that we seek to address.” The current investigation of luxury residential real estate will assist FinCEN in further establishing a more transparent system to avoid another financial crisis in the future.

Though currently temporary, the GTO may be extended into next year and expanded to include additional cities and counties.