Governor Cuomo has signed into a law Assembly Bill A5630A which aims to simplify the statutory short form power of attorney and increase its acceptance by third parties (looking at you title insurers and banks). 

Previously, a power of attorney could be void because it did not contain the "the exact wording of the form set forth in Section 5-1513". This strict language caused many third parties relying on the form to refuse to honor powers of attorney not prepared using their own templates out of fear that the form they were unfamiliar with had a small technical error rendering it invalid. 

Now, a power of attorney is valid so long as it "substantially conforms to the form required pursuant to Section 5-1513" even if it contains insignificant mistakes in "wording, spelling, punctuation, or formatting, or the use of bold or italic type... or uses language that is essentially the same as, but not identical to, the statutory form." Even more, "failing to include clauses that are not relevant to a given power of attorney shall not in itself cause such power of attorney to be found to not substantially conform with the requirements of such form." Long story short, the statute now gives much more leeway in the preparation of the form, hopefully avoiding the voiding of powers which in all fairness should have been valid for the purpose intended. 

To promote acceptance of more powers of attorney, the new bill bakes in protections for third parties relying upon powers, as well as penalties for third parties that unreasonably reject powers. 

Section 5-1504 of the General Obligations Law is amended to contain a presumption that a duly acknowledged (notarized) power of attorney is genuine and valid. It also is amended to provide for a mechanism to release a third party relying upon a power of attorney from liability after reasonable acceptance. The third party may "request, and rely upon, without further investigation" (1) an agent's certification under penalty of perjury any factual matters relating to the power and (2) an opinion of counsel (from the principal is fine) as to any matter of law concerning the power. There are strict time limits (10 business days) in which the third party must reject a power of attorney together with a written explanation given to the principal and agent, and then either reject or honor the power after receipt of written explanation received from the agent/principal (7 business days). Most importantly, if the agent receives an acknowledged affidavit from the agent stating that the power is in full force and effect, the third party must accept the power of attorney except for reasonable cause, which is enumerated in the statute. If the third party and agent/principal follow all the steps in this dance, the "third party shall be held harmless from liability for the transaction." 

But what if your bank or title insurer still won't accept your power of attorney? A special proceeding may be commenced against the third party refusing to honor the power, awarding damages (including reasonable attorney's fees and costs) if the third party acted unreasonably in refusing to honor the power of attorney. 

Time will tell if these changes, coupled with the elimination of the statutory gift rider, will result in more widespread use and acceptance of powers of attorney. Banks and title insurers are notorious for avoiding risk when it comes to the use of powers of attorney and the State's attempts to promote their acceptance has bordered on Sisyphean. 

On Tuesday December 15, 2020 at 12:30PM, the NYS Division of Human Rights is hosting a virtual event about discrimination and COVID-19. 

The event will discuss "unjust targeting and attacks against Asian Americans, systemic health care disparities in Black and Brown communities, and the challenges, particularly in workplaces, for people with disabilities." 

As discrimination litigators and trainers we will be attending, will you? 

The US Department of Transportation just added a new wrinkle into your post-pandemic travel plans if you have an emotional support animal. According to new regulations, effective January 11, 2021, carriers can consider emotional support animals to be pets and therefore, make no special accommodations for you even if you are emotionally disabled and need such emotional support animal to function. This is a particularly troublesome decision by the US Government for veterans suffering from PTSD and autistic individuals who both often need emotional support animals to function. 

The new regulations also have enhanced rules for disabled passengers with service animals. A service animal is now defined as a "dog, regardless of breed or type, that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability." As a result, if you have a service monkey or peacock, too bad - these animals don't count anymore. Previously, they did as per the Department of Transportation's website and pursuant to a 2008 regulation (14 CFR 382.117).  

Even if your service animal is a dog, there are other rules that you still need to know. The Department of Transportation is created a form that can be required for travelers requesting an accommodation. This form requires that you certify that your animal is trained, has good behavior, and good health. Additionally, the form can be required up to 48 hours before flights or at the departure gate for animals that will be transported in the cabin. Finally, the regulations allow carriers to require service animals to be harnessed, leashed, or otherwise tethered while onboard. 

It is imperative that airlines train their teams about these new regulations and travelers are immediately noticed about their lessoned rights and heightened obligations.

NEW PODCAST = Equitable distribution, maintenance, and all fancy legal terms explained with our expert Eric Wrubel, who discusses how to keep your kids inheritance away from the ex. #listentolieb #theLIEBCAST #divorces #realestateanddivorce 

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN

Lieb at Law seeks digitally savvy, detail oriented and motivated real estate paralegal. Law firm conducts several real estate closings a day and represents buyers, sellers and lenders in residential and commercial real estate transactions. The firm is a paperless office with a focus on technology and substance. Must be able to work within cloud-based programs and be friendly, charismatic and organized.

The firm’s sister company, Lieb School is one of the largest real estate schools in the state offering continuing education classes to real estate brokers and salespersons. Candidates cannot be a practicing real estate salesperson / associate broker due to conflicts of interest. 

Dan Donovan, a security consultant for sports arenas and convention centers gives us an update on what to expect in 2021 for stadiums, live concerts and corporate events. 

Listen to this podcast segment HERE. 

Today, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced the simultaneous commencement and settlement of antitrust and anticompetitive practice complaints against the National Association of Realtors. 

In its press release, found HERE, the DOJ identified four areas of anticompetitive practice which they allege "result[ed] in decreased competition among real estate brokers":

1. Prohibiting local MLSs from disclosing to prospective buyers the amount of the commission earned by buyer brokers;
2. Permitting buyer brokers to misrepresent to buyers that their buyer brokerage services are free;
3. Enabling buyer brokers to filter MLS listings by the amount of buyer broker commission offered; and
4. Preventing non-NAR brokers from accessing key lockboxes for homes listed on MLS.
   
   

The settlement will directly address these four issues in order to "enhance competition in the real estate market, resulting in more choice and better service for consumers." The proposed settlement can be found HERE and will be open for public comment once posted to the federal register. 

NAR has routinely found itself under antitrust scrutiny due to its overwhelmingly popular MLS platforms, which often are the only multiple listing platforms available in local markets. Three recent federal lawsuits filed against NAR have focused on NAR's policies regarding compensation for buyer brokers, alleging that buyer brokers are unable to compete on price due to the requirement that all listings on MLS offer some form of cooperating brokerage commission. It is alleged that these anticompetitive practices have driven up the overall cost of brokerage services for consumers by eliminating competition on the buyer broker side of the market. 

The announcement by the Department of Justice was silent with regard to whether any additional investigations into NAR were ongoing. 

Starting on December 11, 2020 there will be time limits to remedy any determinations of building code violations in NYS per new law. 

The Real property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 777(a) has been amended to ensure that no code violations or dangerous conditions remain outstanding for "more than sixty days from the date of the order of the court" if the owner (or mortgagee or liener) enters into a consent order to remedy the issue upon the petition being granted against such owner. 

We expect that this sixty day period will be applied by the various town / city / village attorneys in plea agreements as well. 

Now, there is a rush to fix unless good cause for delay can be shown.

Effective November 10, 2020, NYS strengthened its laws against lawsuits that are brought and intended to chill free speech, called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ("SLAPP suits"). 

NYS' prior anti-SLAPP / free speech law had been limited to protecting speech concerning "controversies over a public application or permit, usually in a real estate development situation." 

Now, the anti-SLAPP law deals with "anything other than a 'purely private matter.'" Additionally, the law now requires courts to provide costs and attorney's fees if a lawsuit against public petition and participation was initiated in bad faith to chill speech. 

The new laws are Civil Rights Law 70-a, which deals with the costs and attorney's fees, and Civil Rights Law 76-a, which expands the types of speech that is protected by the anti-SLAPP law. Specifically, Civil Rights Law 76-a now permits a suit concerning "[a]ny communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or ii. [a]ny other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest, or in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition."

To read the full bill, click here. 

Are you ever confused about who the broker is when you search for property online? Thankfully, the NYS advertising regulations were just amended to adequately disclose to the consumer who the exclusive agent is. The specific updates are included in Andrew Lieb's latest article published in The Suffolk Lawyer, law journal. CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE. 

Get your anti-discrimination guidance starting on December 10, 2020 on HUD's new searchable website, which will also give guidance on lending, foreclosures, and much more. 

Currently, guidance is available here.  

Starting on December 10, 2020, HUD will make available "a single, searchable, indexed website," and make guidance subject to a 30 day public comment period with a procedure for the public to petition to modify or withdraw guidance per its Interim Final Rule available at 85 FR 71537.

HUD guidance documents "are statements of general applicability and future effect that set forth policy on statutory, regulatory, or technical issues or interpret statute or regulation." In plain English, guidance advises industry as to HUD's interpretation of laws as applicable to described activity. As such, industry is better able to function, in a regulated environment, when industry can request direction on gray areas of law prior to making investment or taking action in that area. 

As background, "[o]n October 9, 2019 (84 FR 55235), the President issued E.O. 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents," which "requires that each Federal agency take certain actions to ensure the transparent availability and use of guidance documents." This Interim Final Rule is made in satisfaction of the E.O.

Effective October 26, 2020, HUD implemented a new disparate impact fair housing standard.

Disparate impact discrimination occurs when housing practices have an unjustified discriminatory effect even though they were not motivated by a discriminatory intent. 

The new standard exists at 24 CFR 100.500 and it makes a claim of disparate impact discrimination far harder to bring and even harder to prove as compared to the prior HUD standard.

Previously, the regulation did not contain an express pleading standard and instead, only required the plaintiff to prove "that a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect." 

Now a plaintiff must "sufficiently plead facts to support each of the following elements: (1) That the challenged policy or practice is arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary to achieve a valid interest or legitimate objective such as a practical business, profit, policy consideration, or requirement of law; (2) That the challenged policy or practice has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of a protected class; (3) That there is a robust causal link between the challenged policy or practice and the adverse effect on members of a protected class, meaning that the specific policy or practice is the direct cause of the discriminatory effect; (4) That the alleged disparity caused by the policy or practice is significant; and (5) That there is a direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged."

With respect to the 3rd element, that is a very heavy burden for a plaintiff to satisfy at the pleading stage of litigation because the requisite evidence is often unavailable until the parties have engaged in the discovery process. 

Moreover, while the prior regulation provided that a defendant would then have to rebut the claim by "proving that the challenged practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests[,]" a defendant now can just rebut the first element "by producing evidence showing that the challenged policy or practice advances a valid interest (or interests) and is therefore not arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary." Changing the term from a "substantial" interest to "a valid interest" results in the defendant's burden seemingly being far lower.

Moreover, under the new standard, once the defendant rebuts the first element, "the plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of the evidence either that the interest (or interests) advanced by the defendant are not valid or that a less discriminatory policy or practice exists that would serve the defendant’s identified interest (or interests) in an equally effective manner without imposing materially greater costs on, or creating other material burdens for, the defendant." Previously, this was the defendant's burden. 

Regardless, there are now also 3 express defenses available, including that "(i) The policy or practice is intended to predict an occurrence of an outcome, the prediction represents a valid interest, and the outcome predicted by the policy or practice does not or would not have a disparate impact on protected classes compared to similarly situated individuals not part of the protected class, with respect to the allegations under paragraph (b). This is not an adequate defense, however, if the plaintiff demonstrates that an alternative, less discriminatory policy or practice would result in the same outcome of the policy or practice, without imposing materially greater costs on, or creating other material burdens for the defendant. (ii) The plaintiff has failed to establish that a policy or practice has a discriminatory effect under paragraph (c) of this section. (iii) The defendant’s policy or practice is reasonably necessary to comply with a third party requirement, such as a: (A) Federal, state, or local law; (B) Binding or controlling court, arbitral, administrative order or opinion; or (C) Binding or controlling regulatory, administrative, or government guidance or requirement."

Housing participants should be particularly interested in the third available defense in the form of a controlling administrative opinion or binding regulatory guidance. It is strenuously suggested that every housing industry participant seeks such opinion or guidance as a necessary incident of any business plan covering a new product or service. To fail to do so is just reckless in a world where such a defense exists. 

That being said, it is noted that this regulation only pertains to a federal housing discrimination claim and states and locales may offer increased protections to their citizens. So, these other laws must also be analyzed for housing participants to the extent that they afford disparate impact claims (e.g., NYC Admin. Code). 

There are new laws about debt collecting starting on October 30, 2021. 

Specifically, amendments to Regulation F (12 CFR Part 1006), which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), were published on October 30, 2020 in the Federal Register and when these amendments become effective, on October 30, 2021, the entire debt collection industry in the United States will be forever changed.

These changes mainly concern updating the FDCPA with respect to its application to modern forms of communication via technology, inclusive of a safe harbor for communications via text or email. However, the final rule is 653 pages so it's far more extensive than that simplistic understanding and should be reviewed, at length, by any industry participant. 

To navigate the rule, it's recommended that you utilize the table of contents. The main sections of the amendment, which should be studied, are as follows:

1. Communications in Connection with Debt Collection;
2. Acquisition of Location Information;
3. Harassing, Oppressive, or Abusive Conduct;
4. False, Deceptive, or Misleading Representations;
5. Unfair or Unconscionable Means;
6. Other Prohibited Practices;
7. Disputes and Requests for Original-Creditor Information;
8. Sending Required Disclosures; and 
9. Record Retention

As background, the FDCPA was enacted in 1977 because "[t]here [was] abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors" whereas these practices "contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "[d]ebt collection is estimated to be a $12.7 billion-dollar industry employing nearly 123,000 people across approximately 7,800 collection agencies in the United States." 

Make no mistake, these regulations are particularly important because "[c]onsumers... file thousands of private actions each year against debt collectors who allegedly have violated the FDCPA." Available damages in these lawsuits include up to $1,000 plus attorneys' fees for individuals and up to $500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the debt collector for class actions (15 USC 1692k). As a result, debt collectors who are unfamiliar with these amended rules, when they become effective, are in for a world of hurt. 

By the way, there is going to be another rule on this topic in the nearterm and it will address the required disclosures when debt collectors are pursuing time-barred debts (A/K/A, outside the applicable statute of limitations for suit). Stay tuned. 

On October 29, 2020, the NYC City Council approved a new law that requires the Department of Social Services to provide a letter to applicants about their rights to be free from source of income discrimination. 

This is yet another reminder that landlords and brokers need to understand that source of income discrimination is illegal and can subject them to large fines / judgments, loss of licensing, and terrible public relations issues. 

Landlords and brokers should review the NYC Commission on Human Right's Best Practices for Licensed Salespersons and Brokers to Avoid Source of Income Discrimination and revise their applications, leases, policy manuals, and trainings to reflect this new expected law. 

For help, contact Lieb Compliance. 

The new law adds new §21-141.1 to the Administrative Code as follows:

Information regarding lawful source of income discrimination. a. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: CityFHEPS. The term “CityFHEPS” means the city fighting homelessness and eviction prevention supplement program established pursuant to chapter 10 of title 68 of the rules of the city of New York or any successor program. Covered entity. The term “covered entity” means the owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease or approve the sale, rental or lease of a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or an interest therein, or any agent or employee thereof, who is subject to the prohibition on discrimination based on lawful source of discrimination pursuant to subdivision 5 of  section 8-107. Lawful source of income. The term “lawful source of income” has the meaning as set forth in section 8-102. Shopping letter. The term “shopping letter” means a letter issued by the department to assist a household in its housing search that identifies the household as potentially eligible for CityFHEPS and lists the maximum rent. b. The department shall provide written notice regarding the protections of section 8-107 related to lawful source of income at the time that a CityFHEPS applicant receives a shopping letter. Such notice shall be developed by the New York city commission on human rights pursuant to paragraph p of subdivision 5 of section 8-107 in consultation with the department.

It also amends §8-107(5) by adding new paragraph (p) as follows:

For purposes of this paragraph, the term “CityFHEPS” means the city fighting homelessness and eviction prevention supplement program established pursuant to chapter 10 of title 68 of the rules of the city of New York or any successor program. The commission shall develop and disseminate a written notice of protections of this subdivision related to lawful source of income. The notice shall be made available to the department of social services for use in accordance with section 21-141.1. The notice shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

1. Examples of different forms of lawful source of income; 

2. A description of covered entities required not to discriminate on the basis of lawful sources of income;

3. Examples of actions that may indicate discrimination based on lawful source of income in violation of title 8, such as refusing to accept lawful source of income for rent payment, publishing any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept any lawful source of income, and refusing or delaying repairs because a person uses any lawful source of income for rent payment, publishing any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept any lawful source of income,  and any additional actions landlords or brokers use to unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of their using any lawful source of income;

4. A statement that it is illegal for covered entities to refuse to accept a CityFHEPS subsidy for payment of rent or a security deposit voucher in buildings subject to the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of lawful source of income pursuant to section 8-107;

5. A statement that it is illegal for covered entities to request additional payments for rent, a security deposit or broker’s fee because an individual receives rental assistance;

6. A statement that it is illegal for covered entities to publish any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept rental assistance;

7. A statement that it is illegal for landlords to refuse or delay making repairs to an individual’s unit because such individual pays rent with a CityFHEPS subsidy;

8. A statement that an individual has the right to be free from discriminatory, harassing or threatening behavior or comments based on such individual’s receipt of or application for CityFHEPS;

9. Directions on how to contact the commission, the department of social services’ source of income discrimination unit, the state division of human rights and the office of the state attorney general;

10. A description of potential remedies available at the commission if a covered entity is found to have engaged in discrimination based on lawful source of income; and

11. Any other information deemed appropriate by the commissioner and the commission in consultation with the department of social services.

Upon the Mayor's signature, the law will take effect 180 days thereafter.