There has been a long standing dispute in the courts as to whether a family member can be evicted in an eviction proceeding (a/k/a, summary proceeding) or whether a protracted case was required in Supreme Court (a/k/a, ejectment proceeding). 

A summary proceeding is considered to be a "simple, expeditious and inexpensive means of regaining possession" of your property. Yes, it can take many months and thousands of dollars, but in contrast to an ejectment proceeding, that is fast and cheap. You can expect an ejectment proceeding to take years and to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

As you can see, whether a family member can be evicted in a traditional eviction proceeding is a big issue that can change the cost / benefit analysis of proceeding with the eviction proceeding in the first place. 

The answer to this long standing dispute was just provided by the appellate courts in Aloni v. Oliver when the courts ruled that a family member or romantic partner can be evicted just like everyone else in a traditional summary proceeding. 

The only exception to this general rule is that you cannot evict your spouse in a summary proceeding and must resort to an ejectment proceeding, unless there is an existing court decree to the contrary.

Are you ready to evict your family members who are taking advantage of you? 

Attention Contractors: If you help your client violate the uniform fire prevention and building code and that violation empedes a person's egress from such building during an emergency evacuation (think fire), then, you can be fined up to $7,500 under new law. 

This law applies to contractors, architects, subcontractors, construction superintendents, and agents.

Is this fair? Should a contractor have to tell their client no when the client wants something that violates the building code? Are contractors now code enforcement agents?

The headlines are in - the federal foreclosure / eviction moratoriums are extended to June 30, 2021 from March. This extension applies to 70% of single family home mortgages.

The subtext is that we have a foreclosure / eviction crisis on the horizon. According to the White House "1 in 5 renters is behind on rent and just over 10 million homeowners are behind on mortgage payments." 

If you just use a little deduction, you will quickly realize that almost every block across America is going to see foreclosures and evictions. In the micro, this will result in firesales, which will reduce comparable home prices across the board. In the macro, it will decrease property upkeep and maintenance, which will create a secondary impact on the greater community's desirability and pricing. 

That's the bad. 

The good is that it's going to be a buyer's market soon.

We need to start thinking about strategies to Purchase Property Post-Pandemic. 

What's your strategy? 

In the Matter of Bryant v. Garcia, the First Department found that the termination of a tenant’s tenancy was too much of a penalty for hitting the landlord’s employee.

In this case, the tenant was a 64-year-old woman who has been a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) tenant for more than 40 years and who “suffered a momentary loss of control when she struck respondent’s employee, whom she believed to be in a relationship with her former partner” per the First Department. Due to the incident, the NYCHA terminated her lease and the tenant is now seeking to vacate that determination.

The Court granted her request and found that because the tenant has lived there for more than 40 years without incident and that the NYCHA has not showed any other proof that the tenant presents a safety concern, a lesser penalty than terminating her lease is warranted. Now, it’s up to the lower court to determine what the lesser penalty should be.

What do you think the penalty should be? Should assaulting and injuring a landlord be enough to evict?

Traditionally, boards are protected from suit under what is called the Business Judgment Rule, which means that actions that are undertaken in good faith and in furtherance of the community, no matter how foolish, can not give rise to board liability. The only real exceptions to this rule are for acts of self-dealing or discrimination. 

However, poorly drafted By-Laws can change that standard and expose boards to liability. 

This was just highlighted in the recent Appellate Division case of Matter of Kotler v 979 Corp.

In the case there was a dispute about the assignment of a cooperative's proprietary lease on the lessee's death. The Court found that the by-laws supplanted the Business Judgment Rule with a heightened Reasonableness standard when the document stated "consent shall not be unreasonably withheld to any assignment or transfer of this lease."

Then, the board lost the case and was told to pay damages and attorneys' fees. 

Attention boards, managing agents (property managers), and board counsel - don't just copy another board's by-laws - think for yourself.

Here is the scenario - You are trying to sell a property and you order a payoff from your mortgage company, but that payoff quote comes in much higher than you believe that it should. 

You are in a real bind. 

You need to sell, but you don't want to overpay. What should you do?

This is particularly problematic where you are in default on your mortgage and the lender has started tacking on exorbitant penalties and attorneys' fees.

The answer is that you better protest the payoff, in writing, while requesting an itemization and then, you should pay it anyway. 

If you do, you can then file a motion for an accounting and ask the court to compute the appropriate fees, charges, expenses, and other payments due under the mortgage. 

If you don't, your motion to the court for an accounting will probably be denied in light of the voluntary payment doctrine, equitable estoppel, and waiver bar the accounting.

Again, protest and pay is the strategy based upon the appellate court decision in US Bank v. Cordero. 

Are you selling a house in foreclosure? If so, pay attention. 

Anti-discrimination trainings start with learning that we all have implicit biases. However, President Trump had blocked training this topic by Executive Order in many different situations. Well, the federal courts took none of that and have permitted implicit bias trainings again. Andrew Lieb provides an update in the Suffolk Lawyer, Law Journal.

Read the full published article HERE.

Typically, when a construction worker gets injured on the job from an elevated fall, it's a slam dunk case against the GC. 

In fact, Labor Law § 240(1) imposes strict or absolute liability on general contractors, owners, and their agents regardless if the injured worker is partially at fault for falls at construction sites. 

The only real defense for the GC is that the injured worker was the sole proximate cause of the accident (called the, "recalcitrant worker" defense). But, how do you prove sole cause when everyone claims different facts? 

We just learned the answer in an appellate division case, Cordova v 653 Eleventh Ave. LLC.

The case was dismissed because "Surveillance footage of plaintiff falling from the ladder demonstrates that" it was solely the injured worker's fault. The ladder didn't move or shake, it was connected to the sidewalk bridge and scaffolding above and tied to the scaffold too. 

Moving forward, GCs should video your construction sites. It can save you a fortune. 

The NYC Council enacted two bills which effectively ended "at will" employment for employees in the New York City fast food industry. Mordy Yankovich, Esq. shares the updates to the law in the February issue of the Law Journal, The Suffolk Lawyer.

Click HERE for the link to the article.

The Southern District of New York reminded purchasers of real estate in Coppelson v. Serhant that real estate agents are, in fact, trying to sell real estate so they can earn a commission and will make statements to buyers intended to accomplish that goal. 

The plaintiffs, purchasers of an investment property in Manhattan, complained that Ryan Serhant misrepresented that the property would be worth over $5M in a short period of time and that that it was priced 20% lower than comparable properties. The court, in dismissing the case, reminded buyers that they can, and must, perform their own due diligence because sellers of real estate will always talk up how great their property is and because "few sellers will state that the property is priced at an unfavorable level and that it will decrease in value or has no real investment potential." This conclusion is obvious - brokers will engage in puffery to sell real estate and earn a commission, and the courts won't protect your naivete. Whether that is good for business or good for building relationships of trust is another question for another day. 

Another important takeaway from this case is the reminder that a broker's failure to follow the requirements of RPL §443 (e.g. improperly filling out an agency disclosure form) is not the basis for a lawsuit. This is something I encounter nearly every day - buyers discovering something unpleasant about their property after they close and then suing the broker for not telling them about it and for not disclosing that they represented the seller too ("the broker didn't tell me about the oil leak in the basement because they wanted their commission!"). Often there is not actually a dual agency relationship because it is perfectly fine for a broker to only represent the seller with the buyer remaining unrepresented, but many buyers believe the listing broker they met at the open house or showing represents their interests too (hence the intended purpose of the RPL §443 agency disclosure requirement). Regardless, the sole remedy for agency disclosure violations is regulatory action by the Department of State, not a lawsuit.

All of this begs the question, is the current state of regulatory enforcement sufficient to protect consumers from what they perceive as wrongful salesmanship and flat-out incorrect agency disclosures? If not, what would you change? 

The EEOC just released its Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination and lack of religious faith is protected from discrimination at the workplace.

You hear that? Atheists & agnostics - you matter too!

Here is what the manual states:

Definition of Religion

Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the draft did not make sufficiently clear that Title VII protects against discrimination based on a lack of religious faith.

Response: The Commission has made additions to reference repeatedly that discrimination based on a lack of religious faith is prohibited.

A 97 page report was just issued by the NYS Senate on persistent racial and ethnicity-related housing discrimination and this report is going to change the real estate brokerage industry in NYS forever. 

Are you ready? 

According to the report, housing discrimination has changed over the last hundred years from being overt to subvert. However, housing discrimination clearly still exists and something has to be done about it now. 

Would it surprise you to learn that in 2019 there were 28,880 reported complaints of housing discrimination in the USA? Again, twenty-eight thousand complaints!!!

Did you know that the precursor to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) required its members to discriminate as follows:

A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a character of property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality or individuals whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in that neighborhood. 

While this overt discrimination is less prevalent today, the report explains that: 

Today, bad actors often use subtler forms of discrimination; they direct homebuyers of different apparent backgrounds toward different communities, impose more stringent financial requirements on people of color, and provide unequal services to clients based upon their race or ethnicity.

[S]ome real estate agents utilize subtle ways to discriminate, like racially coded guidance and disparate treatment in services offered.

In acknowledging that real estate brokers and agents are the gatekeepers for neighborhoods, the report makes the following categories of recommendations:

1. Develop a NYS Fair Housing Strategy
2. More Proactive Enforcement of Fair Housing Laws (i.e., testing, more funding, & data collection)
3. Licensing & Renewal Training Requirements (i.e., more training from better instructors for licensing & continuing education with a focus on implicit bias trainings)
4. Increased Penalties & Broader Accountability (i.e., $2K fines increased from $1K & managers responsible like brokers with increased experience requirements to qualify)
5. Standardized Broker Policies with Public (i.e., prospect identification, exclusive broker agreement requirements, & pre-approval for mortgages)
6. Internal Brokerage Policies (i.e., brokerages need updated policy manuals with fair housing statements & explanations of the consequences for violations)
7. State & Local Governments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (i.e., enforcement is everyone's responsibility) 
8. Brokers Must Open Offices in Communities of Color (i.e., 12 firms control 50% of listings, but only about 20% to 33% of the listings in minority communities)
9. More Diverse Brokerage Workforce (i.e., NAR's members are 80% white; need Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion initiatives to attract talent to the industry) 

There is very little truth in the old refrain that one cannot legislate equality. Laws not only provide concrete benefits, they can even change the hearts of men some men, anyhow for good or evil.

It's time to change from being part of the problem to being part of the solution. Are you ready?

In housing discrimination, you can't treat people differently in the terms, conditions, privileges, and/or availability of housing. 

Yet, you aren't just responsible for your intended acts of discrimination, known as disparate treatment discrimination. Instead, you are also responsible for your unintended acts that impact groups of people as a secondary effect, which is known as disparate impact discrimination.

Think about it this way, if you don't rent to women, as a policy, that is clearly an act of disparate treatment sex discrimination. However, if you don't rent to long-haired people, aren't you still impacting women in sex discrimination under a different name? That is called disparate impact discrimination.

As to disparate impact discrimination, President Biden just ordered HUD to make sure that the regulations on disparate impact discrimination is preventing practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect. 

Do you think that there should be disparate impact discrimination laws? If so, what do you think they should be? 

On Day 1 of President Biden's Term, he expanded our understanding of the Fair Housing Act by making clear that it includes protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity & sexual orientation. 

See his Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation for your full understanding.

As explained by the President, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that employment discrimination laws, which expressly prohibit sex discrimination, also prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation; and that the same reasoning behind the Supreme Court's ruling will now be applied to the Fair Housing Act's prohibition of discrimination in the sale and rental of housing across our nation. 

In fact, the Executive Order put all perpetrators on notice by stating that the government will issue plans, within 100 days, to effectuate its policy of enforcing these prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

While many states, such as NY, and other locales, already prohibit gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination in housing, the Federal Government stepping in to enforce violations can change the game.

How will you change your business because of this Order?  

A homosexual detective was just given his chance to prove that he experienced workplace discrimination at a trial and recoup damages.

Here are his facts:

• His homophobic colleagues vindictively called other officers wherever he was stationed & told them to harass plaintiff because he was gay;
• 2 Sergeants constantly made homophobic slurs at civilians & gay officers in his presence; 
• He endured over a year of homophobic derision, harassment, and verbal abuse;
• He was singled out to do tasks, which his peers were not required to do, such as:
• He was repeatedly required to enter a holding cell, by himself, with prisoners still inside, while plaintiff carried metal and wooden cleaning implements. This was potentially dangerous, as plaintiff could have been overwhelmed & attacked by the prisoners. Other officers were not required to do it, as it was usually a task for the maintenance crew; 
• He was required to go on foot patrol alone during the midnight shift in dangerous areas at the 77th Precinct while other officers patrolled with partners;
• He was given extra work when he arrived on the job; and
• He experienced some new or escalated conduct after he started to fight the discrimination, which could be deemed retaliatory.

According to Business Insider, Dollar General is paying their employees to get the COVID vaccine, but is that legal? 

Back in 2017, the federal courts, in AARP v. EEOC, addressed the issue of paying employees for participation in wellness programs and found that both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were violated because the incentives permitted rendered the programs not voluntary, as required by law. The incentive, at issue in the case, was "up to 30% of the cost of self-only coverage." 

How does that comport with what Dollar General is now doing? 

They are offering four hours of pay to their employees. 

Is that too much to make participation voluntary? 

Ironically, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is proposing a new regulation about this voluntary standard in the Federal Register for public comment. This new regulation proposes to change the 30% incentive limit (as addressed in the federal case above) to a de minimis incentive limit. In fact, the regulation gives examples of a permitted de minimis incentive, like a water bottle or modest gift card.

Isn't four hours of pay worth a lot more than a water bottle? Is Dollar General going to get sued for this program. What do you think? 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) just launched a new website detailing how it pursues systemic discrimination cases against businesses throughout the US.

How do you get your Paycheck Protection Program Second Draw Loan? 

The rules are out now and here are the top 10 rules that you should know:

1. Last day to apply & receive a new PPP is March 31, 2021;
2. To qualify, you must use or will use full amount of your First Draw PPP loan on or before disbursement of second loan; 
3. SBA may forgive up to the full principal loan amount; 
4. Interest rate is 1%; 
5. Maturity is 5 years; 
6. Borrower must have 300 or fewer employees;
7. Borrower must have experienced a revenue reduction of 25% or greater in 2020 relative to 2019 (quarterly comparison); 
8. When comparing 2020 relative to 2019, any forgiveness amount of a First Draw PPP Loan that a borrower received in calendar year 2020 is excluded from a borrower's gross receipts (not disqualified from the second loan because of the first one);
9. Each hotel, restaurant, or news organization with a location owned by a parent business in a separate legal business entity and employing not more than 300 employees is permitted to apply for a separate PPP loan; and
10. Maximum loan amount = 2.5 months of the borrower's average monthly payroll costs.

On this Podcast, we discuss the highlights of the second Paycheck Protection Program with financial planner, Louis Soriano. Answering questions about whether:

• You can get a second loan
• What the qualifications are to apply
• What size businesses can apply
• How this works with taxes
• If the first loan needs to be forgiven to get the second loan

And MUCH MORE!

During the last two weeks of his Presidency, Trump's Department of Labor just revised the test for whether an individual is an independent contractor or employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

This is significant because employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime whereas independent contractors are not. 

If an employer misclassifies a staff member as an independent contractor when such staff member should be classified an employee, it can result in a devastating blow to the employer who will be exposed to statutory penalties, back pay, attorneys' fees and more. 

Now, Trump's government is using the "economic reality" test to determine employee status. 

According to the government, "the ultimate inquiry is whether, as a matter of economic reality, the worker is dependent on a particular individual, business, or organization for work (and is thus and employee) or is in business for him- or herself (and is thus an an independent contractor)." 

Under this test, the Department of Labor or a Court hearing the case will look to five distinct factors to answer the test. However, two of those factors now have more probative value in answering the question than the rest. These two key factors are:

1. The nature and degree of the worker's control over the work; and
2. The worker's opportunity for profit or loss.