Starting on 11/17/2023, security devices are prohibited on entries to residential buildings without express authorization.

Specifically, new GBL 390-e states that "any keyless security device used to control and secure access to the common areas of any residential building without the express written consent of the owner, board of managers, board of directors, or authorized party of such property" is prohibited.

On November 17, 2023, Governor Hochul signed Bill A00581, amending NYS' General Obligations Law to prohibit settlements, or other resolution, of sexual harassment claims or any other form of unlawful discrimination from including any term or condition that requires the survivor to pay the defendant liquidated damages if the complainant violates a non-disclosure agreement.

Survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination are often required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) as a condition for receiving compensation for their horror. NDAs frequently include provisions requiring survivors to pay liquidated damages (predetermined damages) if they violate the agreement and these damages can be devastating. 

As a result, survivors, who later change their minds or those who were coerced into signing an NDA, face financial hardships for speaking out about their experience. This new law will protect survivors by no longer allowing financial penalties against them for sharing their stories about experiencing harassment and discrimination.

This Bill takes effect immediately and will apply to agreements entered on or after its effectiveness Agreements can no longer require the survivor to forfeit part or all of the consideration for violating an NDA. Additionally, defendants can no longer require survivors to sign an affirmative statement, assertion, or disclaimer stating that they were not subject to discrimination or retaliation.

On November 14, 2023, Governor Hochul enacted A06656, amending Section 756-a of New York State's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. This amendment is designed to safeguard real property owners from the threat of not resolving claims of potential deed theft fast enough while an eviction or foreclosure is pending. 

New York State Assembly Bill A00501 represents a pivotal change in the state's approach to handling discrimination cases. Historically, the timeframe for raising claims under the New York State Human Rights Law was restricted - only 90 days for court proceedings against the government and a maximum of one year for bringing issues to the Division of Human Rights, with the sole exception of sexual harassment cases. The introduction of this bill, however, marks a significant shift, extending the statute of limitations to three years across the board for filings with the Division of Human Rights for claims against both private and public entities. This is biggest for education discrimination lawsuits that often were capped at a one year lookback period. 

Increased Access to Justice: The extension from one year to three years dramatically broadens the opportunity for individuals who have experienced discrimination to seek legal redress against the government. This is particularly crucial in cases where the complexity of the situation or the victims' circumstances might delay the decision to pursue legal action.

Benefit to School Discrimination Cases: The most notable impacts of this bill will be in the context of school systems. Previously, students or parents alleging discrimination had a mere year to initiate legal action. The extension to three years provides a more reasonable timeframe to prepare and pursue these important cases.

Click here to read Bill A00501.

Labor Law 201-g went into effect on October 9, 2018.

Did you know that Plaintiffs (sexual harassment victims) are suing companies for failing to comply with this mandatory training and disclosure law?

In December of 2018, New York County saw its first lawsuit alleging that a "Plaintiff was injured, in whole or in part, as a result of CIRE's failure to comply with NYC Admin Code § 8-107(29) and Labor Law § 201-g."

The case was about a "hostile, offensive, abusive and otherwise inappropriate work environment." 

Allegedly, this harassment included:

• Asking Plaintiff if he was single;
• Asking Plaintiff to go out with her for drinks and dinner, unrelated to business;
• Telling Plaintiff how handsome he and flirting with Plaintiff;
• Complimenting Plaintiff's choice of clothes;
• Telling Plaintiff he should have a girlfriend;
• Telling Plaintiff that having a girlfriend would afford him a health insurance entitlement, which "by the way I, Sarine have health insurance";
• Telling Plaintiff what color clothing he should be warning;
• Moving her desk next to Plaintiff's desk;
• Staring at Plaintiff at all hours of the day and commenting on his face or hair;
• Standing unnecessarily close to Plaintiff when speaking;
• Inappropriately attempting to give Plaintiff hugs and kisses;
• Demanding that Plaintiff "pinky swear" so that he not disclose something that occurred between Ms. Atamian and another employee, just so she could touch Plaintiff's hand;
• Unnecessarily interrupting Plaintiff's conversations with others;
• Demanding that Plaintiff open personal packages and mail in front of her;
• Requiring that Plaintiff make all requests for basic company information, documentation, etc., through her, where other brokers were permitted to engage in such activities on their own.
• Making inappropriate inquiries concerning what Plaintiff was doing, who he was with, etc. when he was not at the Office;" 

In fact, the Plaintiff argued that this violation of Labor Law  § 201-g  should result in Christie's International Real Estate Group, Inc. and two individual parties, paying "compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages and special damages, as well as his costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and disbursements, plus pre and post judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, which amounts exceed the jurisdictional minimums of this Court"

Have you scheduled your annual training yet?

• Definition and scope of automated decision tools.
• Requirement for annual disparate impact analyses to assess potential discrimination.
• Mandate for transparency and public reporting of the analyses.
• Obligation for landlords to notify applicants when such tools are used.
• Empowerment of the Attorney General and Commissioner to investigate and act upon violations.