Wednesday, September 15, 2021

COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors - Executive Orders Analyzed

In an effort to further provide adequate COVID-19 safety protocols for federal contractors and subcontractors, on September 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14042, requiring federal agencies to ensure that contractor and subcontractor contracts contain a clause requiring contractors and subcontractors to comply with all guidance for workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force ("SFWTF").


President Biden established the SFWTF in order to provide guidance to the heads of Federal Govt. agencies on employee safety during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. By September 24, 2021, the SFWTF will provide explanations of protocols required of contractors and subcontractors to ensure workplace safety compliance at workplace locations. Stay tuned for further information as it becomes available. 


It appears that Executive Order 14042 goes hand-in-hand with Executive Order 14043, also signed by President Biden on September 9, 2021, which requires COVID-19 vaccinations for all federal employees, subject to certain exceptions. Additionally, by September 16, 2021, the SFWTF is required to provide guidance to federal agencies who must implement a program requiring COVID-19 vaccination for its employees. Stay tuned for our analysis of that guidance as well. 


Clearly, President Biden has taken drastic steps in an attempt to slow down the spread of the ongoing COVID-19 virus. 


It will be interesting to see what guidance protocols the SFWTF comes up with over the course of this month - do you think it will be challenged in court? 


Stay tuned...






What is a Sincerely Held Religious Belief?

We have been inundated with calls this morning, since Andrew Lieb's appearances on Fox 5, LI News Radio, and WFAN this past week so we thought it was important to put some general information out there for those seeking a vaccine exemption based upon sincerely held religious beliefs. 


To be clear, a sincerely held religious belief DOES NOT automatically get you an exemption from a vaccination requirement.

Instead, your religious belief will, at best, get you an adjustment (known as an accommodation) to a vaccine requirement if such adjustment does not create an undue hardship for your employer. 


Let's break that down a little further.


First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) tells us what a sincerely held religious belief is means here. In summary, a sincerely held religious belief "concerns 'ultimate ideas' about 'life, purpose, and death.' Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not 'religious'," 


As a result, if you want to claim a religious exemption, DO NOT make vaccine mandates POLITICAL. Instead, make your objection to vaccines SOLELY about your vision for life, purpose, and death. 


Moreover, don't be defeated if you are not a practicing member of an organized religion or if your religious leaders disagree with your ultimate ideas. Specifically, EEOC tells us that "new, uncommon, [beliefs, which are] not part of a formal church or sect, [and] only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others" also qualify.  


That being said, there is another prong to the law that is being lost in the conversation today. 


An exemption to a vaccination requirement need only be given if it does not present an undue hardship to your employer.


Under federal law, employers are in the driver's seat because an undue hardship is anything that creates more than a de minimis cost. So, unless a worker works from home and wants to continue to work from home it will be a challenge to find a vaccine accommodation request that qualifies. Barriers, masks, tests, changed hours, modified locations, and the like will likely pose more than a de minimis cost and therefore, an accommodation request can be denied. But, that is ONLY under federal law. 


States, like New York, afford workers with more rights. In New York, a worker should receive an accommodation unless it imposes a significant expense or difficulty on an employer. That being said, accommodations that compromise the safety of others, such as co-works, customers, and the public, at large, always create undue hardships on employers. Therefore, workers should be highly conscious of public health when making their requests.


Putting this all together, a worker should carefully draft their accommodation request form and emphasize that they truly have a sincerely held religious belief by focusing away from politics and instead, on such issues as life, purpose, and death. Then, a worker's request should suggest alternatives to the vaccine such as limiting contact with others, regular COVID testing, and masking. Then, if the worker gets denied, they will have a good case for employment discrimination, which can and should be filed in court.


If that is the route that you are thinking, please hire a lawyer from the get go. Get any employment lawyer, at the start of it, because you are going to need to ensure that your initial accommodation request form (and other communications) do not kill your case before it's filed. You are also well advised to keep your politics out of it, out of social media, and away from your daily conversations. If you are truly seeking a religious exemption, politics aren't what is relevant, your right to worship freely is what matters.




Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Facing Covid Mandates at Work. Legal analysis with Attorney Andrew Lieb.

Vaccines vs. Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs - First Round Goes to Religion

The Federal Court for the Northern District of New York has enjoined vaccine mandates based upon sincerely held religious beliefs by way of issuing a Temporary Restraining Order in the case of Dr. A v. Hochul.  


Here is how the plaintiffs' argued that the vaccine violate their sincerely held religious beliefs - "vaccines [] were tested, developed or produced with fetal cells line derived from procured abortions." According to the plaintiffs:

 Johnson & Johnson/Janssen: Fetal cell cultures are used to produce and manufacture the J&J COVID-19 vaccine and the final formulation of this vaccine includes residual amounts of the fetal host cell proteins (≤0.15 mcg) and/or host cell DNA (≤3 ng).

 Pfizer/BioNTech: The HEK-293 abortion-related cell line was used in research related to the development of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

 Moderna/NIAID: Aborted fetal cell lines were used in both the development and testing of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Further, plaintiffs religious beliefs are that they "oppose abortion under any circumstances, as they believe that abortion is the intrinsically evil killing of an innocent" and follow "spiritual leaders... who urge Christians to refuse said vaccines to avoid cooperation in abortion and to bear witness against it without compromise" and finally, their "religious conviction [is] against involuntary or coerced vaccination as an invasion of bodily autonomy contrary to their religious beliefs."


To be clear, the case is far from over with the next court deadline for the defendants to respond being set at September 22, 2021 at 5pm. As of this moment, no preliminary injunction or permanent injunction has been ordered. At this stage, the court has merely granted a temporary restraining order, which prohibits the denial of "religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination" until round two of the case.


However, if you are the type of person who has a sincerely held religious belief against vaccination, you should use this case as your blueprint to request an accommodation.




 


 

Friday, September 10, 2021

The Fight to Stop Source of Income Discrimination in NYC

NYC Council has enacted local law 1339-2019, which amends Title 21 of the NYC Administrative Code by adding section 21-142, requiring the DSS to provide CityFHEPS (a rental assistance program designed to help individuals and families find and keep housing) applicants with written notice about source of income discrimination at the time an applicant receives a shopping letter from the DSS. 


The notice would provide information about protections under the NYC Human Rights Law related to source of income discrimination.  


The notice will provide the following: 

  • Examples of phrases that may indicate discrimination based on lawful source of income.
  • A statement that it is illegal for landlords, brokers, and other housing agents to request additional payments for rent, security deposit, or broker's fee because an individual receives rental assistance.
  • A statement that it is illegal for landlords, brokers, and other housing agents to publish any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept rental assistance.
  • A statement that an individual has a right to be free from discriminatory, harassing, or threatening behavior or comments based on individuals' receipt of rental assistance. 
  • Contact information for the department's source of income discrimination unit.


Clearly, this local law significantly stops landlords from discriminating against prospective or existing tenants that qualify for source of income under the CityFHEPS program. On the flip side of the coin, the law undoubtedly benefits those receiving source of income from the CityFHEPS program and prospective tenant applicants of the CityFHEPS program, by greatly reducing the likelihood of landlord discrimination based on source of income, while also providing a method to report any future source of income discrimination. 


What's missing is that CityFHEPS recipients should know that they can file suit and get their attorneys' fees paid if they are victims of discrimination. While the BYC Council has made it clear that source of income discrimination will not be tolerable on any level, are landlords prepared to avoid claims of discrimination?  


Landlords - what are you doing to enact policies so your teams don't discriminate? 




Thursday, September 09, 2021

NY Legal Podcast Does In-depth Analysis On Why Landlords Statewide Can Evict Tenants Even With The Eviction Ban

"The Lieb Cast" (a New York based legal podcast hosted by Attorney Andrew Lieb and Lauren Lieb) has featured an entire episode devoted to New York's eviction moratorium (which gives landlords options to pursue evictions or get paid through governmental rent relief). "The Lieb Cast" discusses why landlords can still sue for a money judgment in supreme court. In addition, the podcast explores residential and commercial distinctions for evictions, plus the foreclosure moratoriums in New York.

"NYS landlords can and should file evictions. The new moratorium does not totally prevent evictions and if you file, you will either be able to proceed with the eviction or your tenant will be directed by the court to get government money to pay your rent". Said Andrew Lieb, Co-Host of The Lieb Cast.

 

Podcast Link: https://www.listentolieb.com/876124/9130411-ny-landlords-can-evict-tenants-even-with-the-eviction-ban-here-is-what-you-need-to-know

About The Lieb Cast

Business success takes hard work, but physical hustle can only get you so far. You also need to work out your mind to succeed today. Join Andrew Lieb's weekly podcast to explore how current events impact your business and real estate holdings. This podcast is for business owners and managers who want to stay up to date with the latest legislation and regulations that will impact their business. Learn how to navigate these laws to avoid getting sued, grow and market your business, manage employees, and strategize to dominate our ever-changing business world.

Andrew Lieb is a litigator, corporate trainer, author, real estate school owner, and entrepreneur. He is joined on the air by Lauren Lieb, his wife and business partner, to present this educational and personal podcast. They coach their listeners to business greatness and entertain you with a ton of fun, sarcasm, wit, and banter. Search "Lieb Cast" on any podcast player.



Tuesday, September 07, 2021

New Legislation - Shared Work Program Gives Employers Flexibility to Avoid Layoffs

Struggling employers can reduce their employee's hours and those employees can offset their lost wages with unemployment insurance (UI) under the Shared Work Program, which now offers even more flexibility thanks to S.4049, which Governor Hochul signed on Labor Day (9/6/21).


The Shared Work Program provides employers with an alternative to laying off workers during business struggles by allowing employees to receive partial UI benefits while working reduced hours. 


Previously, under the Shared Work Program, employees could only collect partial UI benefits for up to 26 straight weeks, regardless of what their maximum benefit entitlement is under UI. 


Now, the new legislation changes the cap on shared work benefits from 26 straight weeks to an amount of time equal to 26 weeks' worth of benefits. In other words, employees can now collect UI benefits until they have reached their maximum benefit amount under UI. 


This change will ultimately extend the length of time a worker will receive benefits under the Shared Work Program.


According to Gov. Hochul, "these bills [workforce legislation package] will ensure that workers receive fair wages, benefits, and are kept safe in their work places." 


How big of an impact do you think this new legislation will have on workers and employers going forward? 





Thursday, September 02, 2021

NYS Eviction Ban Has Been Extended to January 15, 2022 – What Should Landlords Do Now?

The NYS Legislature passed Senate Bill 50001 and 50002, extending the state’s eviction / foreclosure moratoria to January 15, 2022, and both bills were signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 2, 2021.

What’s in the Law?
Briefly, the laws:
  • Extend residential and commercial eviction and foreclosure moratoria to January 15, 2022;
  • Expand eviction protections for tenants under the COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Program (CERAP);
  • Create a due process mechanism for a landlord to challenge a tenant’s Hardship Declaration;
  • Direct judges to require residential tenants to apply for CERAP if their hardship claim is determined to be valid;
  • Extend the period covered by the Tenant Safe Harbor Act to January 15, 2022; and
  • Increase funding for CERAP, Hardship Fund, and legal services for tenants facing evictions.

Moving Forward:
Landlords should demand hearings and challenge their tenants’ hardship claims, which is the trigger for the moratoria to apply. Unlike the prior version of the law, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chrysafis v. Marks, a tenant can no longer decide for himself / herself whether the law is applicable. Specifically, landlords may now file a motion with an attestation of the landlords’ good faith belief that the tenant has not experienced a hardship. Then, the court will schedule a hearing to determine whether the tenant’s hardship claim is valid. If it’s deemed invalid by the court, then the eviction proceeding can proceed. If it’s deemed valid by the court, then the eviction is stayed until January 15, 2022, but the court will order the tenant to apply for CERAP so that the landlord is paid rent.

What is CERAP?
Tenants may apply for CERAP voluntary, or under court order. Under CERAP, Landlords receive up to 12 months of rental arrears and up to 3 months of future rent.

Eligible tenants are:
  1. Tenants or occupants obligated to pay rent in their primary NYS residence;
  2. Individuals who have qualified for unemployment or experienced a reduction in household income, incurred significant costs, or experienced other financial hardship due – directly or indirectly – to the COVID-19 outbreak;
  3. Tenants who demonstrate a risk of experiencing homelessness or housing instability; AND
  4. Tenants who have a household income at or below 80% of the area median income, adjusted for household size.

If a tenant is approved for rental assistance under CERAP, the money goes directly to the landlord. However, landlords who accept CERAP payments, must:
  • Not use any prior arrears as a basis for a nonpayment eviction proceeding;
  • Waive late fees;
  • Not increase monthly rent due 1 year from the date the first CERAP payment is received; and
  • Not evict based on an expired lease for a period of 12 months after the first CERAP payment is received, UNLESS the property is in a building with 4 or fewer units, and in which case, the landlord may decline to extend the lease only if the landlord or his immediate family intends to immediately occupy the unit for personal use as a primary residence.

Nonetheless, landlords who accept CERAP may still commence evictions against tenants who:
  • Intentionally cause significant damage to the property;
  • Persistently and unreasonably engage in behavior that substantially infringes on the use and enjoyment of other tenants or occupants; or
  • Causes a substantial safety hazard to others.

What should landlords do now?
Start an eviction proceeding and challenge the hardship, which will either result in CERAP money or permission to continue the eviction process. Alternatively, if a landlord does not have a good faith basis to challenge the hardship or does not want to be restricted by the program’s requirements, then, a landlord should bring a breach of contract lawsuit in NYS Supreme Court against their non-paying tenants, as explained by the federal courts in Elmsford Apartment Associates LLC v. Cuomo.



Wednesday, September 01, 2021

Podcast: NYC v. Montana - Polar Opposite Vaccine Mandates

Episode 208 of The Lieb Cast.


Stop complaining about governmental vaccine rules for where you work and where you go. Just live in the right place for you. We explain NYC's vaccine rules to participate in everything and Montana's new anti-discrimination law that prohibits changing opportunities based on vaccination status. 


Search "The Lieb Cast" on any podcast player. 



Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Emergency Regulation Released to Guide Employers on Immediately Complying with NY HERO Act

As previously reported on this Blog,  the New York Health and Essential Rights Act ("NY HERO Act") requires employers to take various measures to protect employees in the event of a future airborne infectious disease outbreak.  An "emergency regulation"  and "proposed final regulation" was recently released to clarify and implement certain requirements contained in the NY HERO ACT so employers are prepared in the event the NY Health Commissioner designates an airborne infectious disease as highly contagious. 


Specifically, the regulation designated as 12 NYCRR 840.1, entitled "Airborne Infections Disease Exposure Prevention Standard" requires employers to:


  • Establish a written exposure prevention plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure in the event of an outbreak of an airborne infectious disease;
  • Update exposure prevention plans whenever necessary to reflect new or modified tasks which affect occupational exposure and to reflect new or modified employee assignments;
  • Make exposure prevention plans available, upon requests, to all employees;
  • Select and obtain appropriate exposure controls appropriate for exposure risks (i.e. health screenings, masks, distancing, hygiene, etc.); and 
  • Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for exercising their rights under an employer's exposure prevention plan. 

Do you agree with this proposed final regulation? 


To make your voice heard, comments should be sent to Michael Paglialonga, Department of Labor, at regulations@labor.ny.gov, by November 2, 2021. 





Friday, August 27, 2021

Evictions Evictions - Get Your Evictions - US Supreme Court Opens the Floodgates

On August 27, 2021, the US Supreme Court opened the floodgates for evictions throughout the United States in the case of Alabama Association of Realtors v. DHHS


Landlords, have you called your attorney yet to start the eviction process? 

Investors, are you ready for the housing market to swing because of a flood of inventory? 

Tenants, have you started to make moving arrangements and tried to settle your arrears for less money? 


Wow, can you feel that tsunami coming? 


Make no mistake, this is the first domino to fall in our housing market's shift into a buyer's market on fundamentals. Are you ready? 


For the legal context of what transpired, the CDC had issued a moratorium on evictions in counties with substantial or high levels of COVID-19, which we explained here. That moratorium was thrown-out by the District Court for the District of Columbia, but that Court knew that the issue would get to the Supreme Court so they stayed (a/k/a, paused) the effectiveness of their Order overturning the moratorium until the Supreme Court could weigh-in, which we explained here. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed-in and the eviction moratorium is ineffective, unlawful, and unenforceable. 


To be clear, the Supreme Court did not weigh-in on the policy of an eviction moratorium. They didn't rule as to whether it is a good idea, good policy, or needed for our country. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled "that the statute on which the CDC relies does not grant it the authority it claims." In plain language, the eviction moratorium was thrown-out because the CDC's basis for imposing the moratorium does not afford it that power.


You see, Executive Branch agencies, like the CDC, can't do whatever they want. They need power before they act, which comes from Congress. Without that power, they can't do anything. They can't issue regulations, rules, or directives. This power, called an enabling statute, was missing from the eviction moratorium, according to the Supreme Court, which explained that the power relied upon by the CDC was meant "to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination," not eviction moratoriums. According to the Supreme Court, "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends." 


Knowing that, you should be wondering if Congress will act and impose its own eviction moratorium? 


For landlords, investors, and tenants that is a really important question given that the Supreme Court acknowledged, in its decision, that "[a]t least 80% of the country, including between 6 and 17 million tenants at risk of eviction, [fell] within the moratorium." 


However, we doubt that Congress will issue another moratorium because it can't get anything done with its division in the Senate. Further, the Supreme Court reminded Congress, in its decision, that a federal "moratorium intrudes into an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship." 


As a result, evictions are about to flood the court systems. Are you ready for the eviction tsunami? 




Thursday, August 26, 2021

Podcast: Breakdown of New Eviction & Foreclosure Moratorium + Tips on Timing The Market

On episode 206 of The Lieb CastWe give an update on timing the real estate market and clarify new updates to the eviction & foreclosure moratoriums. Search "The Lieb Cast" on any podcast player. 





Podcast: Interview with Attorney Suing Texas Governor over Mask Mandate Ban

On episode 205 of The Lieb CastWe bring on the Attorney who is representing the group of disabled children in Texas suing Governor Abbott over school mask mandate ban.  We predict the unraveling of several lawsuits to follow. Search "The Lieb Cast" on any podcast player. 






Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Landlords with Elevators - What do you do for disabled people during outages?

The MTA needs to explain what reasonable accommodations it made for passengers with disabilities to access the subways during its frequent and inconvenient elevator outages according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Brooklyn Ctr. for Indep. of the Disabled v. Metro. Transp. Auth.


This raises an important question for all landlords - what do you do to provide access for disabled people when your elevators don't work? 


According to the Court, "[a]n “accommodation must overcome . . . non-trivial temporal delays that limit access to programs, services, and activities.” 


While the the MTA offered accommodations such as busing alternatives, notice of outages, and permanent signage explaining alternative routes, the Second Circuit said that wasn't enough to summarily dismiss the case.


Have you audited your accommodation offerings recently? If not, you should. 





Friday, August 20, 2021

New Law Cuts Down Banking Overdraft Fees for its Customers

In one of his last acts as Governor for the State of New York, Gov. Cuomo signed legislation on August 19, 2021, which requires banks in NY to take action to prevent overdraft fees against its customers. 


Previously, under the NYS Banking Law, if a customer's check exceeds the funds available in the customer's checking account, that check and any subsequent checks received by the bank would be dishonored by the bank. In other words, even if there were sufficient funds to satisfy these subsequent checks, the banks would still dishonor those checks because the initial check was rejected, and therefore, the banks would be able to charge overdraft fees on each rejected check. 


This new legislation (S1465) requires banks to honor any subsequent checks presented to a bank if the customer's account has sufficient funds to cover those checks, even if the initial or prior check was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the checking account. 


The rationale behind this new legislation stems from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; specifically, the struggles in our economy and the struggles that many families continue to endure when it comes to paying their bills. This new legislation will ensure that banking customers will not be charged excessive overdraft fees and will allow customers to hold onto more of their money.


How big of an impact will this new legislation have on our economy going forward? 



                                   



Thursday, August 19, 2021

Federal Judge allows CDC Eviction Moratorium to Remain in Effect

On August, 13, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich held that the CDC eviction moratorium, which was extended by the Biden Administration through October 3, 2021 (“New CDC Moratorium”) should remain in effect.

This means that tenants may still be protected, subject to certain rules, until October 3, 2021.

As background, the CDC’s previous moratorium, which was first enacted in September 2020 and was challenged all the way up the US Supreme Court, expired on July 31, 2021.

Yet, before it expired the Supreme Court upheld its effectiveness until an appeal was decided on its merits, which remains pending. Now, the moratorium, which we discuss more fully here, remains in effect because Judge Friedrich ruled that it remains subject to the prior stay. on the basis that the New CDC Moratorium is subject to the D.C. Circuit Court’s stay.

Stay tuned for changes as Judge Friedrich’s decision is currently under appeal.


Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Housing Discrimination - Updated Protected Classes List - As Applicable to Downstate New York

We are always updating our CE courses at Lieb School because the law is constantly changing. 


While the law changes on every topic, there is no field that seems to be evolving today more than anti-discrimination law. So, we thought it important to share our updated definitive lists of protected classes within downstate New York for Fair Housing and Discrimination Law.


Note - While these lists are similar for employment discrimination law, there are minor differences in protections between the two fields and you should consult with an attorney should you have any questions.


Fair Housing Act:

  1. Race
  2. Color
  3. National origin
  4. Religion
  5. Sex
  6. Familial status
  7. Handicap

New York State Human Rights Law
  1. Race
  2. Creed
  3. Color
  4. National origin
  5. Sexual orientation
  6. Gender identity or expression (transgender)
  7. Military status
  8. Sex
  9. Age
  10. Disability
  11. Marital status
  12. Lawful source of income
  13. Familial status
  14. Arrest / sealed conviction record
  15. Domestic violence victim status (lease / occupancy only)

New York City Human Rights Law
  1. Race
  2. Creed 
  3. Color 
  4. National origin 
  5. Gender 
  6. Age 
  7. Disability 
  8. Sexual orientation 
  9. Uniformed service
  10. Marital status 
  11. Partnership status 
  12. Immigration or citizenship status
  13. Lawful source of income 
  14. Presence of children 
  15. Occupation
  16. Victim of domestic violence, stalking or sex offenses

Westchester Fair Housing Law:
  1. Race
  2. Color
  3. Religion
  4. Age
  5. National origin
  6. Alienage or citizenship status
  7. Ethnicity
  8. Familial status
  9. Creed
  10. Gender
  11. Sexual orientation
  12. Marital status 
  13. Disability 
  14. Source of income
  15. Status as victim of domestic violence, sexual abuse, or stalking

Nassau County Fair Housing (Open Housing)
  1. Race
  2. Creed
  3. Color
  4. Gender
  5. Disability
  6. Age 
  7. Religion
  8. Source of income
  9. Veteran status 
  10. Sexual orientation
  11. Familial status 
  12. Marital status
  13. Ethnicity  
  14. National origin
  15. First responder status
  16. Visible traits of an individual such as natural hair texture, protective hairstyles & donning of religious garments or items and shall include segregation

Suffolk County Human Rights Law:
  1. Race
  2. Color
  3. Creed
  4. Age
  5. National origin
  6. Alienage / citizenship
  7. Gender
  8. Sexual orientation 
  9. Disability
  10. Marital status 
  11. Sex
  12. Familial status
  13. Military status 
  14. Visible traits of an individual, such as natural hair texture, protective hairstyles & donning of religious garments or items
  15. Lawful source of income
  16. Veteran status
  17. Victim of domestic violence

To remind everyone, the federal law is the floor under which states and locales may not fall. Plus, there are often city / town / village anti-discrimination laws that are also relevant and must be respected in housing.

Discrimination is wrong and should be eliminated through trainings, policies, and lawsuits. As a society, we have to utilize all of the tools in our arsenal to make housing available to everyone irrespective of demographics.

Help us to get the word out on this one. It's important because unless everyone knows the protections, no one is really protected.





Monday, August 16, 2021

First Week Working in Real Estate Law: Expectations vs. Reality

Hi, my name is Adriana Sutich and I’m the newest member of the Lieb at Law, P.C. team. I’m waiting on admission to the Bar and then, I will be a closings attorney with the firm. At that time, I’m going to use my married name, Adriana Mason, Esq. Until then, I wanted to share my initial experience as an almost-attorney so that we could get to know one another. 


Before I started working at Lieb at Law, P.C., I had very limited knowledge of what it was like to work in real estate law.  I have a sister-in-law who works at a title company, and a family friend who used to be a real estate attorney, and when I asked them to describe what working in real estate is really like, the phrase that kept coming up was “fast-paced.” So, I knew before I started working here that real estate transactions move along quickly. This makes sense, as it is understandable that people who are buying or selling their home want to get to the closing table as quickly as possible.  In my experience, this definitely proved to be true.  In my first few days, I saw numerous instances where we would get a new deal, have the contract out that same day, the buyer’s attorney would have it signed and returned a day or two later, and then it was on to the next steps. 


What I didn’t anticipate, though, is how many things can go wrong in anticipation of a closing, and how quickly they can fall apart, sometimes at the last minute.  Some examples of last-minute events that can derail a closing include: 

  1. A document needed for the closing not arriving in the mail in time. In my first few days, I saw a closing fall apart 45 minutes before it was supposed to start, for this exact reason.
  2. The property was not in the exact condition as agreed upon for closing. If there are personal belongings, boxes, or anything still on the premises that isn’t supposed to be there, the closing will be postponed. 
  3. There are scheduling issues. It is difficult to get all the necessary parties to be available at the same time for a closing, so if someone must cancel, the closing will have to be postponed, and the scheduling will have to start all over again.

These are just a few situations that I’ve seen during my first few days on the job. I’m sure I will encounter countless other examples as time goes on. 


What other unanticipated events do you think that I will see next?


I’m going to keep sharing my experiences so stay tuned to what I learn next.  




Friday, August 13, 2021

U.S. Supreme Court Allows NYS Landlords to Resume Evictions

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked part of New York’s eviction moratorium, specifically Part A of the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Protection Act of 2020 (CEEFPA), which imposed a moratorium on evictions for tenants who provide their landlord with a signed hardship declaration. What this means is that New York State landlords can now resume their eviction matters.

As a reminder, CEEFPA allowed tenants to simply sign and provide a Hardship Declaration to their landlords to halt any eviction proceeding against them. The Supreme Court found that this self-certification by the tenant and CEEFPA’s limited avenue for a landlord to challenge the tenant’s declaration “violates the Court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily ‘no man can be a judge in his own case.’”

The Supreme Court’s decision is a big win for landlords and it came at a time when everyone is wondering whether CEEFPA’s eviction moratorium, which was set to expire on August 31, 2021, would be extended. However, New York landlord-tenant courts and county sheriffs have yet to implement rules which reflect the Supreme Court’s decision. We’ll keep you posted.

Although the New York eviction moratorium is now essentially nonexistent, it should be noted that the CDC moratorium is still in place until October 3, 2021. However, with the CDC moratorium basically having the same framework as CEEFPA, it's possible that it will also come under the same scrutiny as CEEFPA and also be struck down. What do you think?



Thursday, August 12, 2021

Will NY Governor Hochul End the Employer Wage Theft Loophole?

One of the first decisions that Governor Hochul will likely have when she is sworn in should be relatively simple. 


The new Governor should sign S858, which was delivered to the Governor on August 9, 2021, and which amends Labor Law 193 to stop employers from utilizing a narrow definition of deductions to steal wages. The amendment states "THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO LIABILITY UNDER THIS SECTION FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED FAILURE TO PAY WAGES, BENEFITS OR WAGE SUPPLEMENTS."


As background, the Labor Law authorizes employees to sue to recover "unpaid wages, attorney's fees, and in many cases liquidated damages" for violations of Article 6 of the Labor Law. However, oddly enough, Article 6 does not contain any express obligation to pay wages. Rather, the Labor Law requires timely payment of minimum wage overtime, etc. Employees have used Section 193 ("Deductions from Wages") to try to recover for an employer's complete failure to pay wages with mixed results because Section 193 applies to unlawful deductions from wages, not a failure to pay full wages or an employer, for example, unilaterally reducing an employee's wages for a given pay period for poor performance (not technically considered a "deduction"). Employees, thus, are often left to proceed under a cause of action for breach of contract, which does not permit recovery of liquidated damages and attorneys fees. This new proposed law, which the new Governor should sign, clears up any confusion by clarifying that any non-payment is a deduction and damages are recoverable, including attorneys' fees.


According to the Bill's justification, "employees must be paid what they are owed, no matter what."


If you haven't been paid, you have 6 years under the Labor Law to pursue your wages.


Have you been paid everything that you are owed? If not, you should contact an employment attorney.