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. 

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? 

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

On episode 206 of The Lieb Cast, We 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 Cast, We 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. 

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. 

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?