LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Monday, December 14, 2015

Real Estate Brokerage Regulatory Updates - 11/7/15 NYS Board of Real Estate meeting summary

On 11/7/15 the NYS Board of Real Estate continued its mission of optimizing the regulation of real estate brokers in our state by holding its meeting in NYC, Buffalo and Albany. To remind real estate brokers and salespersons, the public is welcome at these meetings where the public can bring comments from the floor. It’s encouraged that Lieb School students attend these meetings to have your voices heard. 
"[T]he Board has general authority to promulgate rules and regulations affecting real estate brokers and salespersons in order to administer and effectuate the purposes of Article 12-A of the Real Property Law."

A complete video of the meeting is available on YouTube.

In summary, the following was discussed:
1.      New Rules: A rule making package for new regulations in the field is going through the regulatory process concerning the following topics:
a.      Setting a specific timeframe to deposit escrow monies rather than a reasonable time as the rule currently requires;
b.      Rules concerning brokers who accept money from their client as opposed to the existing rule concerning a broker accepts money from all clients;
c.      Including a 1 hour safety training course in the curriculum;
d.      Modifying continuing education from a required minimum of 3 hours to 1 hour;
e.      Changing 1 credit of continuing education from constituting 1 hour of study to only constituting 50 minutes of study; and
f.       Revising the advertising regulations to require business cards to include the actual title of the cardholder on the card.
2.      Clarification of School Regulations: It was clarified that online schools and brick and mortar schools are regulated equally with regard to having a brokerage NOT control or own the school.  
3.      Continuing Education Credits: In the distant horizon the Department of State is implementing an online continuing education credit system so agents will not need to keep their original certificates at such time.
4.      Brokerage Curriculum:
a.      Changes to the broker’s curriculum were voted and approved as published. Such changes are not effective yet as there is a long regulatory process.
b.      The Board discussed updating the salesperson’s curriculum next and possibly updating the test to make it more difficult. However, it was pointed out that only approximately 60% pass the salesperson’s exam, as currently written, so making it harder may be too large of a barrier to entry into the field.

c.      The Board clarified that the legislature would have to make a high school diploma or GED a requirement of licensing because the statute, as written, does not give the Department of State the power to implement such regulations. 

Thursday, December 03, 2015

Zoning Ordinances Banning the Sale of Medical Marijuana Likely Discriminate Against People With Disabilities

Jessica Vogele, the number one ranked law student in the 2L class at Touro Law Center who is also a Law Clerk at Lieb at Law, P.C. addresses the most hot-button issue on Long Island today by delving into the zoning of medical marijuana facilities within her article published in The Suffolk Lawyer.

In July 2015, the New York State Department of Health licensed five companies to manufacture and sell medical marijuana in compliance with the Compassionate Care Act of 2014. Although no manufacturing plants will be located on Long Island, there are plans to build two dispensaries – one in Nassau County and the other in Suffolk County. The proposed site for Suffolk County is located in the Town of Riverhead and has met considerable resistance from town residents due to its proximity to a high school and the risks of increased violent crime and traffic generally associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. This backlash against the proposed site has prompted the Village of Islandia to preemptively amend its zoning ordinance in order to ensure that no dispensaries will be placed
within the village’s boundaries in the future.

The issue here is whether the village’s new zoning ordinance, which prohibits the sale of medical marijuana dispensaries within its boundaries, discriminates against people with disabilities.

Reasons to Involve an Attorney in the Rental of an Accessory Apartment

There is a strong temptation for homeowners to rent out the extra space in their home for a few quick bucks on the side, but long gone are the days where being a part time landlord was as easy as posting a classified ad in the newspaper and watching the monthly rent checks roll in. 

With the continuing evolution and advancement of tenant protection laws, it is critical that a landlord runs the rental of their accessory apartment in the same way that they would run a business. One of the biggest differences between a professional and someone who dabbles in a field is the thorough understanding and appreciation of the risks their business faces. 

This article focuses on a few key developments in landlord-tenant law that all mom-and-pop landlords should be conscious of in order to avoid turning their part-time supplemental income into a big time hole in their pocket.

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Profiting From Real Property

Income producing real estate in Suffolk County is the backbone of our local economy. We have our weekend warriors who rent out their second homes, merchants who operate and lease our mixed use downtowns, REITs, public companies and national brands who manage our industrial parks and shopping centers, hospitals and their doctors, lawyers, architects and accountants who inhabit our professional spaces and every other category of property owners imaginable. Yet, the business of owning and/or managing an income producing property is truly a business, and should not be thought of as a passive investment afterthought. It’s a business that requires a lawyer to serve as counselor, negotiator, scrivener and litigator. In fact, best in class legal services can transform a poor real estate investor into the next great American tycoon.

In this issue of The Suffolk Lawyer, we not only focus on Real Property, but also focus on the business of profiting from real property with all of its associated risks and blue ocean opportunities. Regardless of your individual legal practice focus, knowing the basic pitfalls of real estate ownership is a necessary knowledgebase for every Suffolk County attorney. 

In this edition Dennis Valet, Esq. discusses the need to preemptively mitigate leasing risks in “Reasons to Involve an Attorney in the Rental of an Accessory Apartment,” and Alicia Menechino, Esq. addresses the need to respect the judicial process for evictions in her article, “Self-Help: Vigilante Justice or Legal Re-Entry?” Next, Jordan Fensterman, Esq. addresses the unique risks inherent with renting medical space in his article, “Leasing Medical Office Space in New York.” 
 
Then, we are thrilled to have Jessica Vogele, the number one ranked law student in the 2L class at Touro Law Center, address the most hot-button issue on Long Island today by delving into the zoning of medical marijuana facilities within her article, “Zoning Ordinances That Ban the Sale of Medical Marijuana Likely Discriminate Against People With Disabilities.” 
 
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, Michael S. Brady, Esq. addresses inspired capital gains tax deferral strategies, which transform the income producing property owner into a true income producer, in his article “Bending Over Backward to Defer Taxes: Reverse 1031 Exchanges.”
 
In my fourth year as the Special Section Editor for Real Property, I need to thank our Editor-in-Chief, Laura Lane, who has made this all possible. Thank you to Ms. Lane and to all of our writers. I hope that you enjoy this edition.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Bans Against Smoking May Discriminate Against the Elderly and Disabled

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing a ban on smoking in public housing units nationwide to protect residents from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Citing to the higher risks of cancer and other diseases associated with secondhand smoking, HUD Secretary Julian Castro stated that this policy would protect millions of Americans from preventable diseases every year. Additionally, it would save public housing agencies millions of dollars in repairs from fire and smoke damage caused by lit tobacco products.

The “castle doctrine” is a long-standing legal doctrine allowing individuals certain protections in his or own home. However, if HUD’s proposed ban is enacted, public housing will no longer be a castle for those residents who want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. By conducting public health studies and hearing public comments, HUD is within its rights to create such a ban.
Many public housing agencies across the country have already implemented anti-smoking policies due to the HUD’s vigorous campaign to adopt such policies since 2009. However, this proposed ban would require all public housing agencies to conform to a non-smoking policy in not only the residences but also the indoor common areas, administrative offices, and within 25 feet outdoors of these units.

It is unclear how the rule will be enforced and what kinds of accommodations will be offered to smokers who already reside in these public housing units. Though the act of smoking lit tobacco products does not fall under a protected class, this policy may have a disparate impact on elderly and disabled smokers who cannot easily leave their homes every time they want a cigarette. If the elderly and disabled are unable to conform to the rule, they be forced out of their residences without any other place to go.


Secondhand smoke is a public health issue, but HUD must tread lightly to offer reasonable accommodations to those who already reside in public housing and who may not be able to abide by the new rule.  Otherwise, HUD may face a flood of discrimination lawsuits.