Sketchy landlords beware! 

New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law Article 7-C has been added by A3241 to give tenants and municipalities a new tool in their arsenal to address persistent unsafe conditions that are neglected by their landlords. 

Applicable in both residential and commercial mixed use properties, the new law, which is immediately effective, allows for receivership proceedings where a landlord has failed to remedy “conditions dangerous to life, health, or safety.” Basically, this means a court may appoint an independent “receiver” who is empowered to manage and redirect rent deposits towards fixing an issue that a landlord has neglected to sufficiently address.

However, what's interesting is the flip side of the law. It's yet another reminder that tenants should not unilaterally withhold rent or make repairs, outside of their rights in their specific lease, when there are habitability issues at the premises. Instead, they should follow the law and have their rental money deposited with the Court. Doing it otherwise is technically a grounds for eviction. Simple stated, there is a procedure when a landlord doesn't fix property and you, as a tenant, can't decide to just not pay when it's not being fixed. 

This procedure of depositing rent into Court and having a receiver appointed was formerly available only in New York City, but now applies statewide. 

Have you ever wanted to hire an attorney for a specific task in litigation and to do the rest of the case by yourself? 

What about to oppose a motion? Or, to draft a complaint? Or, to respond to discovery? Or, to argue in court? 

What about being frustrated when consulting with attorneys who will only take your case on an hourly basis because they will be stuck as your attorney until the end and have no idea how long the litigation will go; wouldn't it be better to only have to pay a flat fee for specific task? 

The day of limited scope appearances in civil litigation has come in New York State.

Today, Governor Hochul signed A04938 into law and it's immediately effective. The bill enacts CPLR 321(d), which is titled "Limited Scope Appearance," and reads as follows:

1. An attorney may appear on behalf of a party in a civil action or proceeding for limited purposes.  Whenever an attorney appears for limited purposes, a notice of limited scope appearance shall be filed in addition to any self-represented appearance that the party may have already filed with the court. The notice of limited scope appearance shall be signed by the attorney entering the limited scope appearance and shall define the purposes for which the attorney is appearing. Upon such filing, and unless otherwise directed by the court, the attorney shall be entitled to appear for the defined purposes.

2. Unless  otherwise directed by the court upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances and for good cause shown, upon completion of the purposes for which the attorney has filed a limited scope appearance, the attorney shall file a notice of completion of limited scope appearance which shall constitute the attorney's withdrawal from the action or proceeding.

Now, CPLR 321(d) is not a license for a free-for-all. Instead, this new law is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires your informed consent before a limited scope representation is established, by way of Rule 1.2, Comment 6A, which provides: 

In obtaining consent from the client, the lawyer must adequately disclose the limitations on the scope of the engagement and the matters that will be excluded. In addition, the lawyer must disclose the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the limitation. In making such disclosure, the lawyer should explain that if the lawyer or the client determines during the representation that additional services outside the limited scope specified in the engagement are necessary or advisable to represent the client adequately, then the client may need to retain separate counsel, which could result in delay, additional expense, and complications.

Nonetheless, limited scope representation is expressly permissible under Rule 1.16(c)(11), which permits the termination of representation when it is allowable by "other law." 

As a result, Lieb at Law welcomes you to the age of unbundled legal services in New York State litigation. 

*Attorney Advertising

On December 12, 2022, Governor Hochul enacted A8869B, which protects hate crime victims from insurance rate spikes / cancellations by amending Insurance Law 3114. 

Now, policies must be issued, renewed without increase in premium, and can't be cancelled solely on the basis of claim(s) resulting from hate crimes.  

This law is effective immediately and applies to claims that occurred in the preceding 60 months. 

On December 9, 2022, Governor Hochul signed S4844B, which amends Labor Law 206-c effective June 7, 2023, and thereby modifies the rights of nursing employees to express breast milk at work.

Note that the amendment changes the term "mothers" into an "employees" right to "express breast milk." Cue Anti-Woke Mob. 

Regardless, everyone should note that the right to express breast milk at work remains an unpaid right. 

Setting that aside, the big change in the law is that now employers have an obligation to provide a specific location with specific features for employees to express breast milk. The law states that employees "shall designate a room or other location," that is "in close proximity to the work area," "well lit," "shielded from view," and "free from intrusion from other persons in the workplace or the public." In addition, the room needs to include "a chair, working surface, nearby access to clean running water and, if the workplace is supplied with electricity, an electrical outlet." Moreover, the room can't be a "restroom or toilet stall." Finally, employees should have access to refrigeration. 

This is a big change from the prior law where employer were only required to "make reasonable efforts to provide a room" that was close "to the work area." 

This change is a huge lift for many employers. In that vein, the law does have an undue hardship exception where employers that would experience "significant difficulty or expense" can avoid providing the room to the exact specifications required under the law. Yet, they still must do a lot towards helping "employees" in expressing breast milk.  

Regardless, employers all must notice their staff "as soon as practicable" to designate the room for "breast milk" or their undue hardship alternative. Further, the Department of Labor is going to develop a written policy of rights that is going to be required to be provided to employees upon hire, annually, and upon an employee's return to work following the birth of a child.

Attorney Andrew Lieb Comments on Trump Organization Being Found Guilty of Tax Fraud on CBS 2 NY.

In New York all real estate licensees (real estate salespersons, brokers, and associate brokers) must receive 22.5 hours of continuing education every 2 years to stay licensed. Part of the requirement is a 2 hour class on cultural competency. 

Lieb School offers a web-based video (on-demand) class that satisfies the NY continuing education requirement of cultural competency. This course also satisfies the cultural competency requirement to obtain a broker's license. 

To learn more about and register for the Cultural Competency class CLICK HERE. 

For more information on our on-demand real estate continuing education courses and $99 license renewal package CLICK HERE. 

All Lieb School courses are instructed by Attorney Andrew Lieb. 

 Attorney Andrew Lieb appeared on FOX LIVE for a comprehensive analysis on the oath keepers founder convicted of sedition in Jan 6th attack. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb comments on how Kanye West sexual harassment allegations could affect adidas legally 

In New York State and under the New York State Human Rights Law, a discrimination lawsuit generally must be commenced within three-years of the wrong complained of for the lawsuit to be timely and actionable. 

However, a federal employment discrimination case must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the wrong for a federal claim, under Title VII, to be actionable. Yet, no federal lawsuit can be filed until the EEOC issues a right to sue letter.

So, what happens when an employee wants to file both a federal and state claim? Specifically, what happens if the right to sue letter isn't issued until after the expiration of the three-year New York State deadline? 

The Appellate Division, First Department, just answered that question in Gabin v Greenwich House, Inc.

The court ruled that NYS Administrative Code section 8-502(d) tolls (a/k/a, freezes) the counting of the three-year period under state law during the period from when a charge is first filed with the EEOC until the right to sue letter is issued.

People are often shocked to learn that their attorney can and, sometimes, should advise them to breach a contract. This shock is probably because of the known fact that if anyone else advises their client to breach a contract, even if it would be in their best interest, such advice could constitute an actionable wrong by the advising party that would get them sued for tortious interference with a contract.

However, that is not the case for attorneys. 

As the Appellate Division, Second Department, recently reminded us in Asamblea De Iglesias Christianas, Inc. v DeVito, 

"Absent a showing of fraud or collusion, or of a malicious or tortious act, an attorney is not liable to third parties for purported injuries caused by services performed on behalf of a client or advice offered to that client" (id.; see Doo v Berger, 227 AD2d 435, 436).

This is really important case law because sometimes the exposure (a/k/a, cost) of the breach is less than the cost of honoring the contract and therefore, businesses and individuals alike can be better off by not being bound by their word and a breach might be advisable. So, before you act on a contract that is giving you second thoughts, don't see your best friend, see your attorney.