With the foreclosure and eviction moratoriums coming to an end in January 2022, New Yorkers are about to feel pinched in their housing costs, which may turn into utility billing issues.

New Yorkers just received increased rights and beginning on December 8, 2021, utility companies are prohibited from engaging in harassment, oppression, or other abuses towards residential customers in connection with deferred payment agreements and the collection of unpaid balances.

Bill A3359 was signed by Governor Hochul on November 8, 2021 and amends §53-a of the Public Service Law.

As you may recall, a proposed bill (A2382) was submitted to Gov. Hochul last month, seeking to amend the CPLR & Judiciary Law concerning predatory debt collection practices & consumer actions, as discussed in our blog here.

On November 8, 2021, Gov. Hochul signed bill A2382 into law. 

"When bad actors try and take advantage of consumers, New York will fight back. I'm proud to be signing legislation that will protect New Yorkers from unscrupulous practices by debt collectors and utility companies."  -Gov. Hochul. 

This is huge news considering the new legislation will undoubtedly protect debtors from abusive debt collection practices. 

How big of an impact will this new legislation have on overall debt collection practices in New York? 

Stay tuned....

Starting January 2, 2022, borrowers negotiating a loan modification have a right to a single point of contact at their lender.

On November 3, 2021, Governor Hochul signed BillS671 into law, which amends Section 6-o to the banking law, and starting on January 3, 2022, upon written request by the borrower, lenders will be required to provide borrowers with a single point of contact who must provide accurate account and other information related to the foreclosure process and loss mitigation efforts.

This is huge because many mortgage modifications are functionally blocked by a lack of access to lenders rather than based upon qualification criteria. As the foreclosure moratorium is coming to an end on January 15, 2022 and a wave of foreclosures are about to hit New York State, this is a needed law for borrowers, and their attorneys, to settle cases.

On November 8, 2021, Governor Hochul signed Bill A430 into law, which amends Section 52-c to the Civil Rights Law, and starting on May 7, 2022, employers with a place of business in New York who monitor or otherwise tap telephone calls, e-mails, or internet access of an employee by any electronic device or system, must give prior written notice upon hiring to all employees. Additionally, each employer must also post the notice of electronic monitoring in a visible place which is readily available for viewing by its employees.

Any employer found to be in violation of this Bill will be subject to a maximum penalty of $500 for the first offense, $1,000 for the second offense, and $3,000 for the third and each subsequent offense.

On November 6, 2021, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the OSHA Vaccine Emergency Temporary Standard (which we explained in this blog). However, the Circuit set a short briefing schedule and required the Government to respond to petitioners' motion for a permanent injunction by 5:00 PM on November 8th, which they did, and the petitioners to reply by 5:00 PM on November 9th, which they did. 

However, the stay seems to be a splashy headline about absolutely nothing. Specifically, the Emergency Temporary Standard's compliance date is not until January 4, 2022 and it impossible that the legality of the Emergency Temporary Standard is not determined before then. More so, as the Government points out, in great detail within their response, this case will be in Multidstrict Litigation "on or about November 16—21 days before the December 7 date that petitioners allege is the earliest date that any employee could be required to receive a vaccine and 51 days before petitioners’ employees would be required to start testing." Here, the 5th Circuit choosing to go it alone, is really strange. 

Regardless, the ultimate determination in this case will likely involve a ruling as to whether the United States Code (29 USC 655(c)), permitted OSHA to issue the vaccine Emergency Temporary Standard. The applicable Code section reads:

OSHA shall provide, without regard to the requirements

of chapter 5, title 5, United States Code [5 USCS §§ 500

et seq.], for an emergency temporary standard to take

immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register

if he determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave

danger from exposure to substances or agents determined

to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and

(B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect

employees from such danger.

Stated otherwise, the question before the Multidistrict Court is going to be whether OSHA has power to issue the Standard. To get to that answer, it is helpful to understand that a grave danger means one that causes "incurable, permanent, or fatal consequences to workers, as opposed to easily curable and fleeting effects on their health," according to precedent. 

Now, to make matters even more interesting, even if OSHA loses on this Emergency Temporary Standard before the Multidistrict Court, it can nonetheless issue a vaccine requirement through traditional rulemaking so long as such a requirement is "'reasonably necessary or appropriate' to address a 'significant risk' of harm in the workplace." As you can see, we are just in the starting gate and this horse race hasn't yet even started. Stay tuned. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") issued its long awaited emergency temporary standard requiring all private sector employers with 100 or more employees ("covered employers") to "develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy." OSHA issued separate rules for federal contractors/subcontractors and health care workers.

The OSHA rules require all covered employers to ensure their employees are vaccinated by January 4, 2022 or undergo weekly testing for COVID-19 and wear face coverings while at work (There is no testing option for health care workers).

Employers do not have to require employees to get vaccinated or be tested weekly if they: 1) report to a workplace where no other individuals are present; 2) work entirely from home; or 3) work exclusively outdoors. In addition, the rules provide for a reasonable accommodation for employees who have a disability or sincerely held religious belief (where there is no undue hardship to the employer).

The rules also require covered employers to do the following:

• obtain and preserve records of employee vaccination/testing which must be provided to employees, employee representatives and OSHA upon request;
• provide employees with up to four (4) hours of paid time off to receive their vaccine dose(s);
• provide reasonable time off and paid sick leave for employees to recover from side effects experienced from receiving the vaccine;
• require employees to notify the employer when they are diagnosed with COVID-19 and remove all employees who are positive from the workplace until they meet certain criteria;
• require all unvaccinated employees as of December 5, 2021 to wear masks (they must be vaccinated by January 4, 2022). 
• report all COVID-19 fatalities and hospitalizations to OSHA;

Aside from the vaccination/weekly testing requirements, all of the other rules take effect on December 5, 2021. Covered employers should, thus, immediately work with counsel to begin creating and implementing a policy in compliance with these new rules. Covered employers who fail to comply with these rules can face fines in the amount of $13,653 per violation or $136,532 per violation if the conduct is willful or repeated. 

On November 4, 2021, Governor Hochul signed Bill S1383 into law, which amends Section 759-a of the General Business Law. Beginning September 1, 2022, builders of one- or two-family homes with less than three stories will be required to provide a buyer with a cost estimate for the installation and maintenance of an automatic fire sprinkler system. The builder must also provide a copy of written materials prepared by the office of fire prevention and control which details the benefits of and includes factors that can affect the costs associated with the installation and maintenance of an automatic fire sprinkler. If the buyer requests the installation of the automatic fire sprinkler system, the builder shall install it at the buyer’s expense.

Fire Sprinkler systems are an effective device in the event of a fire and are not uncommon. Many structures such as commercial buildings and multi-family homes are required to install such devices in the State of New York. The justifications for this bill seem very convincing, and this bill will allow prospective homeowners who are planning new construction with a cost estimate for installation of a fire sprinkler system which could ultimately, save their house or even more importantly, their lives.

As of January 28, 2022, NYS insurers are prohibited from refusing to issue or renew, cancel, or charge or impose an increased premium for homeowners' insurance policies based on the breed of a dog owned.

Nonetheless, Insurance Law 3421 now provides an exception where insurance can be modified if a breed or mixture of breeds is designated as a dangerous dog pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law 123, which requires such designations to be made by sound underwriting and actuarial principles, rather than fear alone. 

Governor Hochul signed this legislation, S4254, on October 30, 2021. 

Wow, as of October 22, NYS is now permitting felons to serve as Executors of Estates by way of A2573A. 

Previously, a Petition for Probate required an Affirmation as to whether the applicant has been convicted of a felony and if they had, they'd be denied Letters Testamentary (appointment as the estate fiduciary). 

According to the Bill's Justification, the purpose of this new law is to respect the decision of the decedent. Specifically, the Justification states:

In most instances the court respects the choices made by the creator of the document and appoints the nominated parties. It is detrimental to grieving families when an individual is prohibited from acting as an executor due to his or her conviction after paying their debt to society.

That being said, this new law is not without any restrictions whatsoever. Specifically, the law enables the Court to nonetheless declare a felon ineligible if their "crime may be adverse to the welfare of the estate, including but not limited to, crimes such as embezzlement or any crime where there was a misappropriation of money or a breach of fiduciary duty."

Before the US Supreme Court on Monday, November 1, 2021, is Texas's abortion law, which seems to be about stopping abortions by changing the standard from viability, as is the current law under Roe v. Wade, to 6 weeks into pregnancy, but it's about so much more and you should really care. 

The law deputizes Texans to police their neighbors in a way that should ring out fears that we are transitioning into a dystopian society like a real-world Handmaid's Tale. 

Imagine for a second, if you can, that this law has nothing to do with abortions (regardless, if you are pro-life or pro-choice) and ask yourself, how do you feel about your neighbors receiving $10,000 for catching you speeding on the highway, or shoplifting, or putting an extension on your house without a permit. In Texas, if you catch someone violating the 6-week abortion rule, you can get paid $10,000. Crazy. 

Ironically, Texas's law has survived scrutiny under Roe v. Wade because of this unique enforcement scheme. In fact, the US Supreme Court previously denied an application for injunctive relief, on September 1, 2021, by explaining that there was no "private-citizen respondent before us [who had] intention to enforce the law" [they sued the government rather than a citizen enforcing the law to get $10,000] and therefore, the Court ruled that there was a procedural hurdle preventing it from making "any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law" when it comes to abortions. 

Now, on November 1, 2021, the Court will hear arguments as to whether the "United States [may] bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit SB. 8 from being enforced." If they can stop a judge from granting the $10,000, they stop the law.