How to Renew Your NY Real Estate License (Without Losing It)

Whether you're a seasoned broker or a first-time salesperson, renewing your New York real estate license is not optional — it's legally required. And if you’re not careful, one small mistake in the renewal process could leave you unlicensed, out of compliance with Article 12-A, and unable to collect commissions.

At Lieb School, we train thousands of real estate professionals every year to meet their continuing education (CE) requirements on time and with ease. As the legal educators behind Lieb at Law, P.C., we’re also keeping a close eye on compliance risks that can cost you your livelihood.

Here’s what the NY Department of State (DOS) wants every licensee to know for a smooth, penalty-free renewal.

✅ TIP: The #1 Mistake to Avoid

Quoted directly from the DOS:
“They need to renew online and make sure they answer ‘YES’ to the continuing education question. If they mistakenly answer ‘NO’, we will not renew their license until we see their original course completion certificates.”

So let’s be clear:
Always answer “YES” to the continuing education question — if you’ve completed your 22.5 hours. Otherwise, your license will be delayed or denied.

📝 How to Renew Your NY Real Estate License

Renewal is done 100% online via eAccessNY. Follow these steps:

1. Log in: Visit eAccessNY and log into your account.
2. Access Your License: From the main menu, click “List of Licenses” and select the license you wish to renew.
3. Click “Renew License”: If your broker or office affiliation has changed, your broker must update your sponsorship BEFORE you renew.
4. Answer the CE Question: Affirm that you completed your required CE — or risk rejection.
5. Submit Payment: Enter your credit card details and click Submit (once!). You’ll get a confirmation page — print or save it.

📩 What Happens Next?

A confirmation page means your application has been submitted, but not yet approved. You must check your license status in your eAccessNY portal under “Application Status Display.”

If it says “In Progress”, DOS is still reviewing your application. If anything is missing, they will notify you.

🚫 What If I Clicked "NO" by Mistake?

You’ll receive a rejection notice. To move forward, you must email original certificates of your CE course completions to the Bureau of Educational Standards, even if it was a mistake.

Avoid this mess by:

• Completing your CE well in advance
• Answering “YES” when asked about CE
• Saving your original certificates for at least two years (you may be audited)

📅 When Should I Renew?

You can renew 90 days (3 months) before your license expires. The expiration date is printed directly on your license, and reminders are sent via email and postcard.

⏳ Don’t wait: If your license expires and stays expired for 2 years, you’ll need to:

• Retake the state exam
• Reapply from scratch
• Pay all new fees

🎓 Learn With Lieb School

Need CE hours? Our fully online, on-demand CE packages are designed to satisfy ALL NY requirements — including:

• Fair Housing / Discrimination (3 hrs)
• Implicit Bias (2 hrs)
• Cultural Competency (2 hrs)
• Agency Law (1–2 hrs)
• Ethics (2.5 hrs)
• Legal Updates (1 hr)
• Electives from expert attorney instructors

📘 View CE Packages for NY Salesperson or Broker License Renewal »

⚖️ Questions About Legal Compliance?

If you're audited, face disciplinary action, or get into legal trouble due to a licensing issue, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. Our attorneys represent brokers and salespersons in DOS investigations, commission disputes, and real estate litigation throughout New York.

🔍 Learn About Our Real Estate Brokerage Law Services »

🏛 About Lieb School & Lieb at Law, P.C.

Lieb School is a New York Department of State-approved real estate school delivering practical legal education for license renewal. All instructors are licensed attorneys from Lieb at Law, P.C., a boutique law firm focused on real estate, employment, and discrimination litigation.

*attorney advertising

AI Just Won Big in Copyright Cases: What Happens Next?

A U.S. federal judge just handed artificial intelligence ("AI") one of its first big courtroom wins that will likely ripple through every major copyright case against AI companies.

In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court ruled that it is fair use to use legally purchased books to train an AI model. Judge Alsup called the use "quintessentially transformative," comparing teaching an AI how to write to a human reading a book to learn how to write. Since the AI wasn’t copying or republishing the books, just learning from them, he found it didn’t violate copyright laws. 

This is huge for the growth of AI models. However, a real terrible moment for authors, artists, and other creators who have been arguing that using their work, especially without permission, amounts to large-scale theft. 

This decision will shape the future, unless reversed on appeal. While Judge Alsup's ruling is not binding on other courts across the U.S., every founder, judge, and lawyer working on AI copyright issues needs to take notice.

To be clear, Judge Alsup's ruling doesn’t give AI companies a free pass. He has also allowed a separate claim to move forward about allegedly using pirated books for training. As a result, the how and where data comes from still matters.

Workday Lawsuit Proves Discrimination Risk: Audit Your AI Now

Well, here it is, a federal judge just let a discrimination lawsuit move forward against Workday, the tech giant behind hiring software used by over 10,000 companies. Who is the plaintiff? A Black man over 40 with anxiety and depression who says he was auto-rejected more than 100 times by companies using Workday's AI.

He alleges the algorithm itself is biased, filtering out applicants based on race, age, and disability. This isn't just speculation, and he argues that it is supported by studies, which have shown AI hiring tools regularly replicate the same discrimination humans are supposed to avoid.

In July 2024, we blogged about New York’s DFS warning insurers, if you’re using AI and third-party tools, you’re responsible for making sure they don’t discriminate. That means audits, transparency, and clear legal accountability, even if the tool wasn’t built in-house.

In the New York Law Journal, we outlined exactly what a proper AI audit looks like, because when the lawsuits come, and they are coming, ignorance isn’t a defense, but a proper audit and intervention are very good defenses.

Workday says it “opposes discrimination.” Great. But denying wrongdoing doesn’t stop a lawsuit from moving forward, or a reputation from unraveling. If you’re using AI in hiring or other decision-making, the Workday case is a giant red flag. Start auditing NOW.

If your software is doing the sorting, you better know how it’s doing it, and who it’s leaving out.

So here’s the question: Have you audited your AI tools yet? 

New Proposed Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure - The Text

On June 18, 2025, we wrote about "New Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure in NYS Proposed by Division of Human Rights."

At that time, we didn't have the proposed regulatory text - now we have it. It's 9 pages long so we won't give you it all, but here is the most interesting outtakes (underlines are additions and brackets are deletions):

• 465.2 Service of papers. Determinations, notice of hearing, complaints, respondents' answers, and division decisions, findings of fact and orders shall be served by personal service [or registered or certified mail, or ordinary], first class mail, email or other appropriate electronic means. [However, where a nonresident person or foreign corporation is charged with violating any provision of the law by virtue of the provisions of section 298-a thereof, the complaint and notice of hearing shall be served only by personal service or by registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to such person or corporation at the last known place of residence or business.] - this is interesting because lawsuits don't permit service by email, but now administrative proceedings permit it without advance order of the administrative law judge. 

• 465.3 Complaint. 
• (a) Who may file:
• (2) an organization claiming to have suffered an injury because of alleged unlawful discriminatory practice(s) or whose members, clients or those they represent have suffered an injury because of such practice(s); - this is interesting because it gives standing to organizations whose members or clients have suffered an injury (think non-profit community organizations). 
• [(4) Any complaint filed in accordance with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subdivision may be filed on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated.] - this is interesting because it eliminates class actions.
• (b) Form. 
• [(e)] (d) Time of Filing. The complaint must be filed within [one year from the date of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice] three years from the date of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice (or within one year for alleged sexual harassment in employment occurring prior to August 12, 2020, or for any other alleged discrimination occurring prior to February 15, 2024). If the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice is of a continuing nature, the date of its occurrence shall be deemed to be any date subsequent to its inception, up to and including the date of its cessation. - this is interesting because it acknowledges the different times that the statute of limitations was expanded, first for sexual harassment and then, for every other protected class, but expressly does not provide retroactivity. 
• [(f)](e) Manner of filing. [The complaint may be filed by personal delivery, ordinary mail, registered mail or certified mail, addressed to any of the division's offices.]
• (1) Reporting discrimination. Prior to filing a complaint, a complainant must provide information and documentation to support the allegations of discrimination to the division. The information must be submitted on a form promulgated by the division.
• (i) Online. The division form may be submitted online through the division’s portal which can be accessed on the division website. The user will be prompted to fill out the web-based form.
• (ii) By Telephone. A division form may be submitted by telephone through the division’s call center. A representative will assist the caller by taking in necessary information and reducing the information to writing utilizing the division’s web-based form.
• (iii) In the discretion of the division, reports of discrimination received via other means may be accepted as submitted.
• (iv) The submission of a division form or other report of discrimination does not constitute the filing of a complaint of discrimination. 
• (2 ) The division will review the submitted form. The division may make corrections for formatting, jurisdictional or other requirements or request additional information or documentation.
• (3 ) After review and any corrections, the information contained in the approved form will become the complaint. The division will return the complaint to the complainant for verification and filing with the division. 
• (4 ) A complaint will be deemed filed once it has been verified, submitted and received by the division. - this is going to be an unmitigated disaster because the complaint is jurisdictional and must be filed within the time periods set forth above (generally 3 years), but now this requires the Division to act before the complaint can be filed and there are going to be many cases dismissed based on this gap on waiting for the Division to act; anyone who works with DHR knows that they are overwhelmed and this will take time, lots of time. 

As a reminder, comments are permissible on or before August 17, 2025 to Erin Sobkowski, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-7679, email: Erin.Sobkowski@dhr.ny.gov

SCOTUS Eliminates Bad Faith / Gross Misjudgment Standard for Education Disability Discrimination Claims

In a unanimous decision, in AJT v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, SCOTUS clarified that Plaintiffs advancing discrimination claims under the ADA and 504 need not allege or prove that the school acted in bad faith or with a gross misjudgment when it denied a reasonable accommodation request in education. 

This case gets it right, but what's interesting is the sideshow of the dispute between the concurring opinions of Thomas and Sotomayor as to whether a failure-to-accommodate always requires proof of intent to discriminate regardless that the statute is silent on that issue. Until that issue is resolved, Plaintiff's counsel would be well served in alleging discriminatory animus in their pleadings and in the heart of their case.

New Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure in NYS Proposed by Division of Human Rights

The New York State Division of Human Rights, which oversees the administrative adjudication of discrimination claims throughout the State, has proposed new rules for Complaints and Investigations in the New York State Register on June 18, 2025. 

Under this Proposed Rule Making, the following changes are submitted for comment on or before August 17, 2025 to Erin Sobkowski, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-7679, email: Erin.Sobkowski@dhr.ny.gov:

• Section 465.1, Definitions, has been amended to reflect the change in title to the Deputy Commissioner of Investigations.
• Section 465.2, Service of Papers, has been amended to provide for electronic service of papers. In addition, the provision regarding service on nonresident persons and foreign corporations has been removed because such service is now dictated by the Civil Practice Law and Rules. 
• Subdivision 465.3(a) is amended to clearly state that any person within the meaning of Executive Law Section 292(1) may file a complaint, or, on behalf of such person, an attorney, legal representative appointed by a court, or a custodial parent or legal guardian of a person under the age of 18. In addition, language has been added to clarify what type of organization may file a complaint, consistent with caselaw. The language has been updated to reflect the current title of the Executive Director of the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. The provision permitting class actions has been deleted pursuant to a court decision disallowing the division from awarding relief to persons who did not file a complaint. 
• Subdivision 465.3(b), Form, is updated to reflect a statutory amendment made to the Human Rights Law pursuant to Chapter 304 of the Laws of 2021, permitting a complaint to be verified by declaration. In addition, this section requires complaints to be in a form promulgated by the Division. Such amendment is necessary to better ensure complaints filed with the Division meet sufficient standards to allow for effective investigation and adjudication and redirect Division time and resources from attempting to correct complaints that do not meet such standards. 
• Subdivision 465.3(c), Contents, is amended to clarify that complaints must include: a concise statement of the alleged discriminatory acts, sufficient to enable the division to investigate the claims; sufficient identification of the complainant(s) and the person(s) alleged to have committed unlawful discriminatory acts; factual allegations sufficient to support the claim. These changes are required to better ensure that complaints received by the Division contain sufficient information to allow for timely and effective investigation and to prevent unnecessary resources from being spent correcting complaints that do not meet legal standards for filing. 
• Former subdivision 465.3(d), Place of Filing, has been removed to conform with the modern technological reality that complaints may be filed virtually. 
• Former Subdivision 465.3(e), Time of Filing, is now Subdivision 465.3(d), and has been amended to reflect a statutory amendment, pursuant to Chapter 656 of the Laws of 2023, requiring a complaint be filed within three years of the alleged discriminatory conduct. 
• Former Subdivision 465.3(f), Manner of filing, is now Subdivision 465.3(e), has been amended to reflect current use of technology, including the use of an online portal for filing and the creation of a telephonic option for filing complaints with the assistance of the Division’s call center. 
• Section 465.5, Withdrawals, discontinuances and dismissals before a hearing, subdivisions 465.5(a) and (c) have been amended to clarify that a complainant may withdraw their complaint before a determination of probable cause has been issued and may discontinue their complaint with the consent of the commissioner after such a determination is made. A new sentence has been added to subdivision 465.5(c) to reflect the Division’s practice, in effect since October 12, 2021, that the commissioner will not consent to discontinue a complaint that has been settled privately without the Division. 
• Subdivision 465.5(d) has been amended to clarify that the commissioner may duly appoint any Division employee to act on behalf of a regional director or the director of housing investigations. 
• Subdivisions 465.5(f) and (g) are added to include other types of dismissals issued by the Division. 
• Section 465.6, Investigations, has been amended to clarify that the commissioner may duly appoint any Division employee to act on behalf of a regional director or the director of housing investigations. 
• Section 465.8, Probable cause review, has been deleted because it is obsolete due to electronic records storage and is otherwise unnecessary because it requires duplicative review of probable cause determinations.

However, the actual text of the proposed changes is not provided and must be requested from Edith Allen, Division of Human Rights, One Fordham Plaza, 4th Floor, Bronx, New York 10458, (718) 741-8398, email: Edith.Allen@dhr.ny.gov. We've made that request, so stay tuned.