The Suffolk County Legislature recently passed a "Ban the Box" law which will prohibit all employers in Suffolk County with 15 or more employees from inquiring as to a candidate's criminal conviction history during the application process. 

An employer cannot consider an applicant's criminal conviction history until after an application has been submitted and the initial interview has been conducted. An employer may only deny employment based on an applicant's criminal conviction history after conducting an individualized inquiry and concluding that the criminal conviction "bears a direct relationship to the duties and responsibilities of the position sought, or that hiring would pose an unreasonable risk to the property or to the safety of individuals or the general public."

The law specifically exempts the Suffolk County Police Department, the Suffolk County Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services, public or private schools and any public or private provider of care or supervision for children, young adults, or physically or mentally disabled individuals. 

An aggrieved individual may file a claim with the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission or file a civil lawsuit. Employers in Suffolk County should immediately adjust their hiring practices and policies to avoid substantial liability.

The law is effective as of August 25, 2020.

Nassau County Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Brown struck down Nassau County’s $355 fee to verify a property’s section, block and lot due to it being unlawful and unconstitutional.

In Falk v. Nassau County, the Plaintiff alleged that Nassau County excessive fees for tax map certification letters (TMCLs) as issued pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 6-33.0. These TMCLs are issued by the Nassau County Department of Assessments and must be filed with real property documents when submitted to the Nassau County Clerk for recording. Plaintiff alleged that the fees are excessive and not reasonably necessary to maintain the County’s real property registry and such fees are taxes as their purpose really is for general revenue. In this regard, the Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment deeming Administrative Code § 6-33.0 unconstitutional because it is excessive and an unlawful tax.

Among other reasons, the court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and found the TMCL fees unconstitutional as it was established that its purpose was for general revenue purposes only and that the fee itself is “indisputably disproportionate to the cost associated with its issuance.” Further, the Court found that they are excessive and not tied to the County’s responsibility in maintaining its property registry nor were such fees assessed or estimated on the basis of studies or statistics.

Nassau County is expected to file an appeal to Judge Brown’s decision. Stay tuned.

Specifically, in Schuhab HDFC v. Delacruz (Case Number: 64402/17), the court held that the tenant’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from domestic violence should entitle her to a probationary order as reasonable accommodation. Under the Fair Housing Act, a landlord is required to provide a handicapped tenant with a reasonable accommodation for the tenant to keep the apartment (42 U.S.C.3605(f(3)(B)). In this case, such reasonable accommodation was in the form of a probationary stay – instead of the tenant getting evicted right away, she was allowed to stay subject to several conditions to prevent any adverse effect to other tenants and guests.

As background, the case was commenced as a holdover landlord-tenant eviction proceeding by Schuab HDFC against the tenant on the grounds that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for the distribution and/or sale of controlled substances. The tenant’s defense was that she neither knew of or acquiesced to the illegal activity. She also requested the court grant her a reasonable accommodation in the form of a probationary stay in the premises as a result of her disability from being a victim of domestic violence.

The Court’s decision narrates and incudes the instances of domestic violence that the tenant suffered from her former partner, the resulting PTSD, and the circumstances which led to her partner’s use of the premises for drug activity as testified by the tenant. While considering the tenant’s testimony and her psychiatrist’s input, the Court agreed in finding that the tenant suffers from PTSD and such disability should entitle her to a probationary stay under the Fair Housing Act.

Consequently, the Court granted the landlord a final judgment of possession against the tenant and other occupants, but also granted the probationary stay in the tenant’s favor as a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The tenant is required to exclude her former partner from the premises, avoid and preclude others from participating in drug-related activity in the premises for a period of two (2) years. In the event of a breach, Petitioner may move for the issuance of a judgment of possession and warrant of eviction.

Real estate professionals should be aware of this decision in order to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act and limit exposure to claims of discrimination for refusing to provide reasonable accommodations.