• The Act applies to summary proceedings or any other judicial or administrative proceeding to recover possession of a commercial unit, including evictions and ejectment actions.
• The Act only applies to a commercial tenant who:
• is a resident of New York State;
• is independently owned and operated;
• is not dominant in its field; and
• employs fifty or fewer persons.

• The Act requires the Court or the landlord (depending on the status of the eviction proceeding) to provide the tenant with the Hardship Declaration in English and in the language of the lease / tenancy agreement.
• The tenant should complete the Hardship Declaration if the tenant is suffering a financial hardship and is unable to pay rent or other financial obligations or obtain alternative suitable commercial property because of:
• significant loss of revenue;
• significant increase in necessary expenses related to providing protective equipment to prevent transmission of COVID-19; or
• moving expenses and difficulty securing alternative commercial property.

• If there is no pending proceeding and a tenant provides a Hardship Declaration to the landlord, the landlord is prohibited from commencing any proceeding until May 1, 2021.
• If the tenant does not provide a Hardship Declaration, the landlord is required to file and serve the following to commence an action:
• affidavit of service of the Hardship Declaration in English and the language of the commercial lease / tenancy agreement;
• affidavit of service of predicate notices required by law and the lease;
• affidavit of the landlord / landlord’s agent attesting to the following:
• Landlord / his agent did not receive a Hardship Declaration from the Tenant; or
• The tenant returned the Hardship Declaration but the tenant is “persistently and unreasonably engaging in behavior that substantially infringes on the use and enjoyment of other tenants or occupants or causes a substantial safety hazard to others, with a specific description of the behavior alleged.”
• If the Court determines that the landlord failed to provide the Hardship Declaration to the tenant, the Court shall stay the proceedings for at least 10 business days to allow the tenant to complete the Hardship Declaration.

• Refers to proceedings commenced on or before March 7, 2020 and commenced within 30 days of March 10, 2021.
• Stayed for at least 60 days, or to such later date the Court deems necessary to provide tenants time to complete and submit the hardship declaration.
• Court shall issue stay and mail copy of the Hardship Declaration to the tenant.
• If the tenant provides a completed Hardship Declaration to the Court or landlord, the matter is stayed until May 1, 2021.

• In any proceeding in which an eviction warrant has already been issued, execution is stayed until the court holds a status conference with the parties.
• If the tenant provides a Hardship Declaration, the execution of the warrant is stayed until May 1, 2021.
• For the sheriff to execute the warrant of eviction, it must now state:
• The tenant has not submitted a Hardship Declaration and the tenant was properly served with a copy of the Hardship Declaration, listing dates of service by the petitioner and the court; or
• The tenant is ineligible for a stay under this act because the court determined that the tenant is persistently and unreasonably engaging in behavior that infringes on the use and enjoyment of other tenants/occupants or causes a safety hazard to others with a specific description of the behavior.

• The Act applies to owners or mortgagors of commercial properties who:
• owns 10 or fewer commercial units (directly or indirectly; units may be in more than 1 property or building as long as total units are occupied or available for rent);
• is a business that is a resident in New York State;
• is independently owned and operated;
• is not dominant in its field; and
• employs 50 or fewer persons.
• The Act does not apply to mortgage loans backed by a state corporate governmental agency.

• The Act requires the Court or the foreclosing party (depending on the status of the foreclosure proceeding) to provide the borrower with a statement of protections available under the Act in 14-point type (“Hardship Declaration”).
• More importantly, the borrower must complete the Hardship Declaration and provide it to the foreclosing party to be afforded relief under the Act, if the borrower is suffering a financial hardship including, but not limited to:
• a significant loss of revenue;
• a significant increase in necessary expenses related to providing protective equipment to prevent transmission of COVID-19;
• moving expenses and difficulty securing alternative property; or
• a commercial tenants’ default on a significant amount of rent since March 1, 2020,
• The borrower’s submission of the Hardship Declaration is a rebuttable presumption of a financial hardship for purposes of establishing a defense.

• If the borrower provides a Hardship Declaration to the foreclosing party/foreclosing party’s agent, the foreclosing party is prohibited from commencing any foreclosure proceeding until May 1, 2021.
• If the borrower does not provide a hardship affidavit, the lender is required to file the following to commence a foreclosure proceeding:
• affidavit of service of the Hardship Declaration in; and
• affidavit of the foreclosing party / foreclosing party’s agent attesting that the foreclosing party or his agent did not receive a Hardship Declaration from the Borrower.
• If the Court determines that the foreclosing party failed to provide the Hardship Declaration to the borrower, the court shall stay the foreclosure for at least 10 days to allow the borrower to complete the Hardship Declaration.

• Refers to proceedings commenced before March 7, 2020 or commenced within 30 days of March 10, 2021.
• Stayed for at least 60 days to May 9, 2021, or to such later date the Court deems necessary to provide borrower time to complete and submit the hardship declaration.
• Court shall issue stay and mail copy of the Hardship Declaration to the borrower.
• If the borrower provides a completed Hardship Declaration to the court or lender, the foreclosure proceedings are stayed until May 1, 2021.

Post-Judgment

• In any foreclosure proceeding in which a judgment of sale has already been issued, execution is stayed until the court holds a status conference with the parties.
• If the borrower provides a Hardship Declaration, the execution of the warrant is stayed until May 1, 2021.

President Biden just established a Council to coordinate the Federal Government's efforts to advance gender equity and equality. 

In plain English, this counsel's mission is to combat sex discrimination by providing legislative and policy recommendations by September 24, 2021.

Stay tuned. Equality is happening now. 

Are you ready?

Andrew Lieb advises why and what you should consider when you are negotiating a quaranty on your next commercial lease.

The article was published by the Long Island Business News. HERE is a direct link to download the PDF. 

If you know that your tenant is engaging in illegal activity at your property, you better do something about it. That's the message from the Federal Appellate Courts in Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC. 

In the case, a jury awarded $1.1 MM against a landlord for contributory trademark infringement for its willful blindness in identifying potential trademark infringing vendors at its premises where a counterfeit Omega watch was sold. According to the Court, liability follows if the landlord "or its agents had reason to suspect that trademark infringing merchandise was being offered or sold but deliberately failed to investigate or looked the other way to avoid seeing such activity." 

To prevail, a plaintiff does NOT need to prove that the landlord "continued to lease space to a specific, identified vendor that it knew or should have known was selling counterfeit [] goods." Instead, the plaintiff only needs to prove that a landlord had "reason to suspect" it's tenant counterfeiting goods "but deliberately failed to investigate or looked the other way to avoid seeing such activity." That is not to say that a landlord has an affirmative duty to police trademarks on its premises, just that it can't ignore them either. 

Landlords - 

Do you have video surveillance at your property? 

Do you have security guards? 

Do you accept complaints about your tenants from their customers?

What do you do to protect yourself from criminal tenants leasing space from you? 

Andrew Lieb, Esq will be instructing a ZOOM CLE for Attorneys on April 13, 2021 through the Suffolk County Bar Association. 

MCLE Credit: 2 Diversity

Location: Zoom

Program Description: The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and handicap (disability). Plus, NYS has even stricter laws that prohibit discrimination in housing.

Did you know, starting on June 20, 2020, all real estate brokers are required to give all transacting parties a Discrimination Disclosure Form detailing their rights and available relief?

This course will uncover and discuss:

• Housing Discrimination 101
• Relevant Laws
• Elements of a Claim/Defense of a Claim
• Damages
• Statutory Penalties
• Top 10 Do’s and Don’ts

Generally, homeowners are exempt from liability for construction-related injuries that happen in their home. 

However, homeowners become liable if they direct or control the method and manner of work. 

What does that rule mean to you?

The Appellate Courts, in O'Mara v. Ranalli, just taught us that it is a jury question where there is evidence that the homeowner did the following acts:

• Supplied the ladders used by the contractors;
• Being on site and giving direction nearly every day; and 
• Deciding not to permit the installation of stairs from the basement to the first floor in the face of the contractor insisting that it was needed for safer and easier access to the first floor.

The NYS Department of Labor is being required by a new law to establish an online database by April 22, 2021 to make available all information and data regarding all workplace fatalities in the construction industry.

Originally, this law stupidly applied to employees rather than workers and contractors, which is the standard for workers in the industry. Now, this has been fixed by new law. 

If you are a GC (general contractor) and you don't think that the ambulance chasers have already planned to favorite this website, you have another thing coming. It's time to button-up those safety protocols, meetings, and compliance checks. 

What are you doing to protect yourself from suit?

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? 

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. 

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.