NY Businesses and Building Owners Authorized to Enforce No Mask, No Entry Policy

On May 28, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 202.34, which authorized business operators and building owners to exercise their own discretion in denying entry to individuals who fail to comply with Executive Order 202.17 requiring face-coverings when in a public place.

Specifically, EO 202.34 allows business operators and building owners to use their discretion in denying entry and requiring or compelling removal of persons not wearing a face-covering, unless they are under the age of two or are not able to medically tolerate it as per EO 202.17. More importantly, EO 202.34 exempts such business operators and building owners from a claim of violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or frustration of purpose. However, the directive must still adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act or any provision of either New York State or New York City Human Rights Law, or any other provision of law.

While businesses and building owners can now restrict entry, they should contact counsel to create a policy that ensures compliance with the anti-discrimination laws and mitigate exposure to discrimination claims.

New York Senate and Assembly Pass COVID-19 Property Tax Relief Legislation

A COVID-19 property tax relief bill is on its way to Governor Cuomo's desk for signature. The bill, S8138B, empowers local taxing jurisdictions to defer property taxes for up to 120 days from their original due date. Alternatively, the taxing jurisdiction can create a payment plan with similar time restrictions. This special legislation will automatically expire with the State Disaster Emergency Declaration.

The bill does not require all local taxing jurisdictions to provide deferral options to taxpayers. It only gives them the option to do so. Assuming Governor Cuomo signs this bill, look to your tax assessor's office to see if your jurisdiction will make use of this new legislation to provide COVID-19 property tax relief. 

Lieb Podcast: Restaurant Innovation Driving the Industry of Tomorrow

This pandemic is turning the restaurant industry upside down and creating new opportunities for restaurants to shift their businesses, adapt and innovate. From new ways of doing take out, curbside and opening up when the government allows, restaurants have unique opportunities to get creative. This week's guests includes Melissa Fleischut, the CEO of New York State Restaurant Association discussing guidance and lobbying efforts. We have Restaurateur and Executive Chef Joe DeNicola who owns 8 restaurants sharing unique ways they have changed their business model and finally we have Tora Matsuoka, strategist and owner of iconic Hamptons restaurants inspiring every entrepreneur how to finish the puzzle to their personal success.

Live shows are on Sundays between 12pm and 1pm on WRCN 103.9FM

This 1 hour show was aired on 5/24/20 on WRCN 103.9 FM. You can download the podcasts for this show at www.listentolieb.com or by clicking on the podcast links below.

• Seg 1: Restaurant Innovation Driving the Industry of Tomorrow

• Seg 2: Alcohol To-Go Lobbying Discussed with CEO of New York State Restaurant Association

• Seg 3: Stories of How Restaurants are Changing to Thrive

• Seg 4: How Innovative Hamptons Restaurants Pivot to Awesome

Courts to Begin Limited In-Person Operations on Long Island

On May 18, 2020 the New York State Court System resumed limited in-person operations in upstate counties. Today Chief Judge Janet DiFiore announced that in-person operations will expand to Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties on May 27, Ulster and Sullivan Counties on May 28, and Nassau and Suffolk County on May 29. 

These re-openings are consistent with Phase 1 re-opening guidelines set by the Governor's Office and can be expanded as Phase 2 and further guidelines are met. 

Phase 1 operations permit judges, chambers staff, and some other limited personnel to return to their physical offices while operating in a manner consistent with current health and social distancing guidelines. Public in-person appearances will be limited to filings of emergency applications and the adjudication of matters that were previously identified as essential. In-person appearances for non-emergency and non-essential matters will be deferred to the courts' expanded virtual capabilities. 

Our court system is more capable than ever. Virtual conferences and the clearing of pending motions has put the courts in a position to handle the influx of new cases that will be filed now that non-essential matters can be commenced and in-person operations are returning. Chief Judge DiFiore has signaled that the expanded use of virtual court operations will be maintained by the courts for the foreseeable future as courthouses look to push as many public visitors as possible away from its doors and onto their computers screens. 

The Court System's official press release can be found HERE. The transcript of Judge DiFiore's latest message can be found HERE. A summary of the current state of online and in-person operations can be found HERE.

Commercial Personal Guaranties Deemed Unenforceable in NYC Council’s COVID-19 Relief Bill – Litigation to Follow if Enacted

On May 13, 2020, the NYC Council approved Int. No. 1932-A, which makes substantial changes to personal guaranties in commercial leases. The bill is on the Mayor’s desk to be enacted.

The bill’s purpose is to provide relief to NYC commercial tenants impacted by COVID-19. It temporarily prohibits the enforcement of personal liability provisions in commercial leases or rental agreements. It would amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York by adding Section 22-1005 and adding Paragraph 14 to Subdivision a of section 22-902 of the NYC Administrative Code.

If enacted, the bill would render guarantee provisions unenforceable against natural persons who are not a tenant in commercial leases or other rental real property. The law would only impact liability for the payment of rent and other charges caused by an occurrence of default, and subject to the following conditions:

1. The tenant must satisfy at least one of the following:

a)     The tenant was required to cease serving patrons food or beverage for on-premises consumption or to cease operation under EO 202.3;

b)     The tenant was a non-essential retail establishment subject to in-person limitations under guidance issued by the NYS Department of Economic Development pursuant to EO 202.6; or

c)     The tenant was required to close to members of the public under EO 202.7; and

2. The default or other event which caused the natural person to become personally liable for such obligation occurred between March 7, 2020 and September 30, 2020, inclusive.

Under the bill, an attempt to enforce a personal liability provision that the landlord knows or reasonably should know is unenforceable, pursuant to the above, shall be deemed commercial tenant harassment, which could result in compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and court costs. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 22-903.

Sounds too good to be true for many tenants and often when it’s too good to be true, it’s untrue. Expect this law to be challenged on constitutional grounds should it be enacted. Specifically, the bill seems to impair the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution because it retroactively affects personal guaranties entered into prior to the bill’s passing. For such a claim to succeed, the initial inquiry under the impairment of contracts clause contains three components:

1. Whether there is a contractual relationship;
2. Whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship; and
3. Whether the impairment is substantial. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 10, cl. 1; American Economy Ins. Co. v. State, 30 N.Y.3d 136 (2017).

While tenants will surely argue that the bill doesn’t substantially impair the parties’ contractual relationship, as the bill only covers rent and payments for the period of March 7, 2020 to September 30, 2020, landlords will counter that the personal guarantee was a material term of the lease and a substantial reason that the landlord agreed to enter into the contract.

For analogy, the Court of Appeals has previously struck down similar government interference in contacts. In Patterson v. Carey, the Court of Appeals struck down a law which curtailed toll authority bondholders’ ability to increase their tolls for Jones Beach State Parkway on constitutional grounds. 41 N.Y.2d 714 (1977). 

If the NYC bill passes, it would likely undergo similar challenges and review as the law in Patterson and be deemed unconstitutional. The bill’s impairment to contractual rights agreed upon by landlords and guarantors would be substantial, especially considering that the bill does not merely delay a landlord’s right to enforce the guarantee during the period stated in the bill, it extinguishes it altogether.

Mayor DeBlasio has until June 12, 2020 to either sign, veto, or do nothing. If the Mayor signs the bill or does nothing, the bill will automatically become law. If the Mayor vetoes the bill, it is sent back to the Council. The Council can then override the Mayor’s veto with a 2/3 vote.

In the meantime, both landlords and tenants should contact their attorneys to ensure that their interests are protected and to prepare for expected lawsuits to follow. For ideas on how to creatively resolve lease issues due to coronavirus and for tips on important lease provisions when renegotiating, listen to our podcasts HERE and HERE.

New York Courts Opens Electronic Filing of New Non-Essential Matters

Beginning May 25, 2020, litigants will finally be able to commence new actions. The acceptance of electronic filing for new non-essential matters represents the clearing of the the penultimate hurdle for the court system's remote operations. In effect, trials and hearings are the only civil court operations still on hold. Judge Marks May 20, 2020 memorandum can be found, HERE. 

It is important to remember that this memorandum does not supersede the Governor's executive orders which restrict certain actions, such as residential evictions, which may still be barred.