LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Friday, May 15, 2020

Victim of Domestic Violence experiencing PTSD deemed Disabled and entitled to Reasonable Accommodation under ADA


In a recent New York City Civil Court decision, the Court held that disability due to domestic violence can entitle a tenant to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

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.





Thursday, May 14, 2020

Podcast | Investment Opportunities in a Worst Case Scenario: No Vaccine

New Bankruptcy Filing Procedures in relation to a COVID-19 Mortgage Forbearance

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, Economic and Security (CARES) Act allows borrowers to request a forbearance on their mortgage. (You can read more about the CARES Act and mortgage forbearance requests in our article HERE.) As bankruptcy filings are expected to rise due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court system implemented a few system changes to their Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) Database in relation to borrowers who have requested a forbearance. These changes are effective May 11, 2020.

Specifically, a new bankruptcy event, “Notice of Mortgage Forbearance” was created to docket such event on the CM/ECF database. In addition to clicking such event, a question was also added to ask, “is a Notice of Mortgage Forbearance being filed with this filing?” in relation to established events on Notice of Mortgage Change. This change has been made to prevent filers from choosing the “Notice of Mortgage Change” event when only a forbearance has been obtained.

As the Court works towards streamlining and implementing a more efficient process, readers are advised to contact their counsel to ensure that the Court’s bankruptcy process and its recent changes be followed to a T to prevent any delays or other issues with filings.

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Podcast | Foreclosures & Mortgage Modifications - Perspective From The Lender

You can't just decide to stop paying your mortgage without consulting with your Lender. 

In Episode 42, Andrew and Lauren breakdown the cost/benefit analysis of whether you deserve a mortgage modification. We discuss foreclosure lawsuits, mortgage terms and what motivates a modification from your lenders perspective.

In Episode 43, From the initial phone call to the bank, we go through how to get a mortgage forbearance agreement and understand the terms before you find yourself with a much bigger problem. Bob Lund leads the residential lending department at Bethpage Federal Credit Union and shares insights from his perspective.




Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Podcast | Tips For Landlords To Renegotiate Lease Terms

Friday, May 08, 2020

Tenants' New Rights: Residential / Commercial Distinction in Fine Print

On May 7, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 202.28 which tackled major changes to landlord-tenant matters in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, including an extension to the eviction moratorium, the usage of security deposits towards rent, and the prohibition on charging late fees.

1. Eviction and Foreclosure Moratorium Extended to August 20, 2020 for Tenants Who Are Unable to Pay Rent or Mortgage Payments due to COVID-19.
On March 7, 2020, Executive Order 202.8 previously ordered an eviction moratorium from March 7 to June 20, 2020. Executive Order 202.28 extends that moratorium to August 20, 2020. Specifically, no proceedings or enforcement may be initiated for residential or commercial tenants on the basis of nonpayment of rent due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Similarly, foreclosure proceedings of any residential or commercial mortgage for nonpayment of such mortgage due to COVID-19 is also prohibited until August 20, 2020.

It is important to note that unlike the Executive Order  202.8 which ordered a moratorium on ALL evictions and foreclosures until June 20, 2020, the extension of the eviction and foreclosure moratorium to August 20, 2020 under Executive Order 202.28 only applies to residential or commercial tenants who are unable to pay their rent and are eligible for unemployment insurance or benefits under state or federal law, or otherwise facing financial hardship due to COVID-19. Thus, eviction proceedings based on breach of material terms under the lease other than nonpayment may start beginning June 20, 2020.

2. Residential Landlords May Apply Security Deposit towards Rent upon Written Agreement.

In addition to the extension of the eviction moratorium, residential landlords, with the tenant’s consent, are now allowed to apply the security deposit and any interest accrued to pay rent in arrears or rent that will become due through a written agreement. If the security deposit is less than one month’s rent, the consent does not constitute the landlord’s waiver for the remaining rent. Executive Order 202.28 expressly allows execution of this written agreement by email. Landlords and tenants should contact counsel prior to making any agreements to ensure that their interests are protected.

Any security deposit used as payment of rent must be replenished by the tenant at the rate of 1/12 the amount used as rent per month and such payments begin 90 days from when the security deposit was used as rent. Alternatively, tenants may retain insurance that provides relief for the landlord in lieu of monthly security deposit replenishment. However, like the extension, the above relief in relation to security deposits only applies to tenants eligible for unemployment insurance or benefits or are otherwise facing financial hardship due to COVID-19.

3. Late Charges for Residential Tenants Prohibited for Periods beginning March 20, 2020 to August 20, 2020.

Executive Order 202.28 also prohibits landlords from demanding or being entitled to any payment, fee, or charge, for late payment of rent pursuant to RPL 238-a occurring from March 20, 2020 to August 20, 2020. This provision only applies to residential properties but take note that it is not limited to tenants who were unable rent to pay due to COVID-19.


Governor Cuomo Tolls Statute of Limitations to June 6, 2020

Governor Cuomo has signed a new executive order extending many of the previous actions taken in his previous orders. Included among these extensions is the tolling of statute of limitations until June 6, 2020. This is necessary, of course, because litigants are still prohibited from filing new non-essential actions. Litigators should be aware that this does not toll all deadlines in pending and ongoing actions. Notices of appeal, motion deadlines, time to answer and appear, and discovery deadlines are all up and running with the courts' expanded remote operations. Additionally, statute of limitations on federal claims are not affected as federal courts remain fully operational. A copy of the executive order, No. 202.28, can be found HERE

Stay tuned to our blog for big changes to the current commercial and residential eviction moratorium. 


Thursday, April 30, 2020

New York Courts Expand Virtual Court Operations - Motion Practice is Back

Motion practice is back.

This afternoon Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks released a memorandum detailing the expansion of virtual court operations. The most important change is the expansion of motion practice. Starting Monday, May 4, 2020, parties may file new motions and responsive papers to previously filed motions in all pending cases. Previously, motions were only permitted in emergency and/or essential matters.

For a summary of what has been operational up until this memorandum, see or previous blogs HERE and HERE.

Courts will continue to conduct virtual conferences on matters the court believe can be resolved, and judges are encouraged to refer cases to virtual alternative dispute resolution (ADR) centers.

This is yet another step closer to full virtual court operations, and it is a big one. Opening up motion practice means litigators can operate at 90% capacity if they make full use of virtual depositions and other electronic tools. The next step needed is permission to file new matters. A full copy of the April 30, 2020 memorandum can be found HERE.

Monday, April 27, 2020

Fair Housing Disclosure / Notice / Website Requirements - Effective June 20, 2020

Major NEW Fair Housing Regulations are effective June 20, 2020 according to the NYS Board of Real estate meeting that was held on April 27, 2020.

ALERT: Real estate brokers must implement trainings immediately on their salespersons distributing the new required disclosure form or risk both license law violations and lawsuits for discrimination. Lieb Compliance is ready to help.



----
The new disclosure regulation is 19 NYCRR 175.28:

a) A real estate broker shall be responsible to ensure that each individual licensed pursuant to Article 12-A of the New York Real Property Law and associated with such broker provides to a prospective purchaser, tenant, seller, or landlord upon first substantive contact a disclosure notice furnished by the Department, containing substantive provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law. The disclosure notice shall set forth how Human Rights Law complaints may be filed, and such other information as the Department deems pertinent.

b) The disclosure notice required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, may be provided to a prospective purchaser, tenant, seller, or landlord by any of the following means: email, text, electronic messaging system, facsimile, or hardcopy. An electronic communication containing a link to the disclosure notice required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be permissible, provided the communication also contains text to inform the prospective purchaser, tenant, seller, or landlord that the link contains information regarding the New York State Human Rights Law. Oral disclosure does not satisfy the requirements imposed by this section.

c) The disclosure notice required by paragraph (a) of this section shall apply to all real property whether or not it is used or occupied, or intended to be used or occupied, wholly or partly, as a home or residence of one or more persons regardless of the number of units, and shall include: condominiums; cooperative apartments; vacant lands, including unimproved real property upon which such dwellings are to be constructed; or commercial properties.

d) A real estate broker, licensed real estate salesperson, or licensed associate broker that provides the disclosure notice required pursuant to this section by hardcopy, shall obtain a signed acknowledgment from the prospective buyer, tenant, seller, or landlord. Such signed disclosure notice shall be retained for not less than three years. A real estate broker, licensed real estate salesperson, or licensed associate broker that provides the disclosure notice required pursuant to this section by email, text, electronic messaging system, or facsimile, shall maintain a duplicate copy of such disclosure and shall retain the same for not less than three years. If the prospective buyer, tenant, seller, or landlord declines to sign the disclosure notice, the real estate broker, licensed real estate salesperson or licensed associate broker shall set forth under oath or affirmation a written declaration of the facts regarding when such notice was provided and shall maintain a copy of the declaration for not less than three years.

Interestingly, subsection (e) was deleted from 175.28 after public comment. Subsection (e) previously stated "[a] real estate broker shall be jointly liable for any violation of this section committed by any licensed individual associated with such broker." Our comment on the topic, given on January 21, 2020, was discussed at the NYS Board of Real Estate meeting on April 27, 2020.

We commented:
This subsection is superfluous, to an extent, and creates issues with regulatory construction as it indicates that a broker is not jointly and severally liable for other violations of 19 NYCRR 175 and as such, it should be stricken. I imagine the intended purpose is to clarify the impact of RPL 442-c on this regulation, but it should be further clarified as it's ripe for litigation the way it currently exists, as proposed.
As you can see, it's always important to participate in the regulatory process through comments. 

----
ALERT: Real estate brokers need to display this new notice in their offices & on their websites. Real estate brokers must audit their real estate salespersons' websites under this new regulation. Lieb Compliance is ready to help.



The new advertising regulation is 19 NYCRR 175.29:

a) A real estate broker shall display and maintain at every office and branch office operated by such broker a notice, furnished by the Department, indicating the substantive provisions of the New York State Human Rights Law relative to housing accommodations. The notice shall set forth
how Human Rights Law complaints may be filed and such other information as the Department deems pertinent.

b) The notice required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be prominently displayed in the window of such office and any branch office maintained by such broker if such broker also provides listings or other postings in the window of such location and must be visible to persons on that portion of the sidewalk adjacent to such office or branch office. If any office or branch office is not accessible from the sidewalk or if postings are otherwise prohibited by any other applicable law, then the notice
required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be prominently posted in the same location the business license is posted pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 441-a of article 12 of the Real Property Law.

c) All websites created and maintained by real estate brokers, associate real estate brokers, real estate salespersons and any real estate team, as such term is defined by section 175.25 of this title, shall prominently and conspicuously display on the homepage of such website a link to the Department’s notice as required by paragraph (a) of this section, which shall be made available by the Department.

d) A real estate broker, licensed real estate salesperson, or licensed associate broker shall have displayed at all open houses of all real property the notice required by paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, a real estate broker, licensed real estate agent, or licensed associate broker shall
have available at all open houses and showings of all real property the notice required by paragraph (a) of section 175.28 of this part.

Interestingly, subsection (e) was deleted from 175.29 after public comment. Subsection (e) previously stated "[a] real estate broker shall be jointly liable for any violation of this section committed by any licensed individual associated with such broker." Our comment on the topic, given on January 21, 2020, was discussed at the NYS Board of Real Estate meeting on April 27, 2020.

We commented:
This subsection is superfluous, to an extent, and creates issues with regulatory construction as it indicates that a broker is not jointly and severally liable for other violations of 19 NYCRR 175 and as such, it should be stricken. I imagine the intended purpose is to clarify the impact of RPL 442-c on this regulation, but it should be further clarified as it's ripe for litigation the way it currently exists, as proposed.
As you can see, it's always important to participate in the regulatory process through comments. 

---
Finally, real estate schools now have to record their fair housing trainings & Lieb School is already in compliance with the new regulation, 19 NYCRR 177.9:

(a) Every entity approved to provide instruction pertaining to fair housing and/or discrimination in the sale or rental of real property or an interest in real property shall cause a recording to be created of each course in its entirety. Such recording shall contain both video and audio of the instruction.

(b) The recording required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be maintained by the approved entity for at least one year following the date such course was provided to an enrolled student. If the entity knows or suspects that the recording is or will be the subject of litigation, then the approved entity shall maintain such recording as required by law.

(c) The recording required by paragraph (a) of this section may be subject to audit by the Department pursuant to section 177.11 of this part.


Friday, April 24, 2020

New Brewery Law: Increased Limits for On-Premises Sale

On April 17, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed Senate Bill S7186, which relates to allowing restaurant-brewers to sell up to 250 barrels of product without a wholesaler, but what does the new law really mean for breweries?

Historically, breweries which sold beer on-premises were limited to making and selling only 250 barrels. To incentivize breweries to invest in their own product, the NYS Legislature increased the limit to 2,000 barrels through Senate Bill S5427. However, they inadvertently removed the language allowing a brewery to sell limited quantities without the use of a wholesaler or a person licensed to sell any beverage for purposes of resale.

Through Senate Bill S7186, Section 64-c of the ABC law was recently amended to clarify that breweries are allowed to sell 2000 barrels per year and up to 250 of those barrels may be sold on-premises without any additional licenses. Any number of barrels over 250, however, must be sold and distributed to other retailers through a wholesaler.

Thus, the new brewery law clarifies that breweries are allowed to sell limited quantities of their product in their own premises and they are also allowed to sell and distribute the rest of their product into other bars, restaurants, and retailers through a wholesaler, and thus allowing them to invest in and grow their businesses.


New SBA Guidance on Paycheck Protection Program and Good Faith Certifications

On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Small Business Administration issued new guidance on the Paycheck Protection Program under the CARES Act, specifically concerning the SBA’s position on good faith certifications and limiting PPP funding to public companies.

All applicants and recipients of PPP funds should pay close attention to Question 31 of the SBA Guidance: 
31. Question: Do businesses owned by large companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?

Answer: In addition to reviewing applicable affiliation rules to determine eligibility, all borrowers must assess their economic need for a PPP loan under the standard established by the CARES Act and the PPP regulations at the time of the loan application. Although the CARES Act suspends the ordinary requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere..., borrowers still must certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, before submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review carefully the required certification that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business. For example, it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith, and such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification. Lenders may rely on a borrower’s certification regarding the necessity of the loan request. Any borrower that applied for a PPP loan prior to the issuance of this guidance and repays the loan in full by May 7, 2020 will be deemed by SBA to have made the required certification in good faith (emphasis added).

While the SBA Guidance specifically mentions public companies and their good faith certifications, it is important to note that the good faith certification is required for ALL borrowers. This means that all borrowers should be prepared to demonstrate their basis for their good faith certification. Thus, to mitigate exposure, borrowers are urged to contact their counsel to prepare a paper trail of their loan application process, which should include at the very least any proof that the application is indeed necessary and the basis for all amounts stated on the application (e.g. payroll, projected losses, operating expenses).

For a further discussion on disclosure, listen to the podcast HERE.


Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Does Your Commercial Insurance Policy Cover Business Interruption Due to COVID-19?

Business owners looking to their commercial policies for business interruption and loss of income coverage due to COVID-19 have likely run into a giant roadblock - an exclusion of loss due to virus or bacteria. Many insurers added these special endorsements to commercial policies after the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s, and yours probably looks something like this:

We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other micro-organism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.

These virus exclusions have led practitioners like myself scratching our heads for novel legal theories to find coverage where coverage is expressly denied. The New York State Assembly has taken notice and is trying to solve this problem for us with ASSEMBLY BILL A10226A


What Does The Bill Do?
The stated purpose of the bill is to "hold harmless businesses who currently hold business interruption insurance, for losses sustained as a result of the current COVID-19 health emergency, but for which no such coverage is currently offered." It accomplishes this by construing all policies insuring against loss of use and occupancy and business interruption "to include among the covered perils under that policy, coverage for business interruption during a period of a declared state emergency due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic." It also declares all virus exclusions null and void, and extends this special coverage for the duration of New York's declared state emergency. The new law would only apply to insureds with less than 250 full-time employees. 

To offset the costs, the bill allows insurers paying claims to apply for reimbursement from the Department of Financial Services who will collect funding for the reimbursements from other insurers, thus spreading the cost amongst all insurers except life and health  (a cost which presumably will be passed onto insureds as a surcharge). 

Most importantly, the bill is retroactive - deemed effective March 7, 2020 and applying to policies in effect on that date. 


What Should You Do Right Now?
Business owners should have their full policy examined to see: (1) if they have business interruption coverage; and (2) whether there is a virus exemption. While other exemptions may preclude coverage, these are the threshold questions. Retaining an attorney to evaluate your policy and to submit a claim is often a good investment because claims can be denied if the wrong language or explanation for your loss is given to your insurer, or if the claim is submitted in an untimely or improper manner. Talking yourself out of a covered claim because you didn't know what was covered and what wasn't is an avoidable mistake.

If your insurer denies coverage that you think you are entitled to, hiring an attorney to pursue a claim against your insurer is an appropriate next step. Federal Courts are still accepting new filings, and the Department of Financial Services is still accepting complaints from insureds.  

Policy holders with virus exemptions should contact their local assemblymember and/or state senator to express support for the proposed legislation. The New York State Senate website even lets you voice your support for the bill digitally clicking the check mark on the right side of THIS WEBSITE.

Keep your eye on our blog for status updates on this bill. If it passes and you benefit from its changes, it may make sense to submit a claim, in which case you should hire an attorney who can give you the best shot at meeting eligibility requirements. 


Is This Even Constitutional?
Expect insurers to push back on this bill because it will create, in their minds, an unfunded liability that was not bargained for when they set insurance premiums for policies in effect on March 7, 2020. Article 1 of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts". The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit the taking of  property without due process of law. In the past insurers have turned to both arguments when objecting to legislation that retroactively imposed new obligations. 

Long story short, the United States Supreme Court has held that the constitution permits contractual interference pursuant to a balancing test that evaluates (1) the extent of the interference, (2) the historic regulation of the industry affected by the law, (3) the legitimate public purpose for the law, and (4) whether the law is appropriate given the stated public purpose, with special deference given to laws addressing emergencies. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 US 398 (1934); Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 459 US 400 (1983). Litigation is inevitable and it appears that the Assembly has specifically drafted this bill with previous case law in mind.

The New York Court of Appeals has addressed retroactive insurance coverage changes in two important decisions. 

In Health Insurance Association of America v. Harnett, 44 NY2d 302 (1978), the Court of Appeals struck down legislation that required retroactive coverage for maternity care in health insurance policies, but it did so on the narrow ground that those policies were forced renewal, where the insurer could not unilaterally cancel or refuse to renew a policy after its period expired, and therefore they did not consent to the change in the substance of the policy. The Court of Appeals did recognize that the legislation could work in other circumstances, stating "while there was a genuine, identifiable public purpose to be served by the enactment of [the law], the predicament which spawned the legislation had not risen to the magnitude of a crisis which warranted overriding the terms of the agreements entered into by the parties". Contrasting the holding in Harnett, commercial policies affected by this bill are not automatically renewable and can be cancelled by the insurer. Further, the Assembly bill specifically references the fact that COVID-19 is a state emergency, giving the legislation the emergency gravitas called for. 

In American Economy Insurance Co. v. State of New York, 30 NY3d 136 (2017), the Court of Appeals upheld legislation that insurers argued retroactively imposed unfunded workers' compensation liability. The legislation did away with a special fund that was used to pay for workers' compensation claims that were closed but unexpectedly reopened many years later. This holding was on the narrow ground that the legislation did not change the actual legal enforceability of the contract between insurer and insured, only how the liability was paid for (i.e. passing the cost of the claim from the fund directly to the insurers). Here, the Assembly bill creates a type of fund that pays for the coverage imposed by retroactive changes, a provision that presumably is intended to bring the bill closer to what is permitted by American Economy Insurance Co., and further away from what is forbidden by American Economy Insurance Co., which cautions against the changing of contractual obligations between insurer and insured. 

Other state courts have attempted similar legislation. In Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. State of South Carolina, 401 S.C. 15 (2012), the South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a law that retroactively changed the definition of an "occurrence" because it altered the contractual relationship between insurer and insured without addressing a pressing emergency. In Vesta Fire Insurance Corp. v. State of Florida, 141 F3d 1427 (11th Cir. 1998) legislation was permitted that limited property insurance cancellations in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. Likewise, in State of Louisiana v. All Property & Casualty Insurance Carries Authorized and Licensed to Do Business in State, 937 So2d 313 (La. 2006) the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended the filing deadline for claims, and the statute of limitations for insurers suing their insurers, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

So, is the proposed legislation constitutional? There are good arguments for both sides. On one hand, COVID-19 is undoubtedly an emergency and the proposed legislation serves a legitimate and pressing public purpose. The bill even attempts to fund the new liability imposed. On the other hand, the bill substantially changes the rights and obligations bargained for when the insurer issued policies in effect on March 7, 2020. It takes a specific exclusion and renders it null and void. This ham-fisted approach may prove too much - an axe when a scalpel would be more appropriate. 

Regardless, business owners need relief now. Being legally correct and receiving your insurance payout 5 years from now after a drawn out legal battle does nothing to help pay your mortgage or payroll right now. While this bill is a good idea, and if passed will bring new benefits to many business that would  not have received them otherwise, it's not a silver bullet that brings the relief business owners need immediately. It should be viewed as one arrow in the quiver and applied in conjunction with other relief programs such as the Paycheck Protection Program. 

Friday, April 17, 2020

Cuomo Extends Deadlines for Condominium Filing Requirements

Governor Cuomo has signed Executive Order 202.18 which extends deadlines for condominium offering plans, offering breathing room to developers. The deadlines for the following requirements have been tolled:

  • Requirement of filing an offering statement or prospective within 15 months of date of issue of the letter from the attorney general stating that the offering statement or prospectus has been accepted for filing is tolled until May 16, 2020 (see Section 352-eeee(2)(a) of the General Business Law);
  • Filing fees required at the time of submission and filing of each offering statement or prospectus also suspended until May 16, 2020 but payment must still be made to the department of law by August 14, 2020 (see Section 352-e(7)(a) of the General Business Law);
  • Requirement of Sponsor’s preparation of a budget for the first year of condominium operation is tolled until May 16, 2020. However, the Sponsor must update the first year of operation, as necessary, within 30 days from expiration of Executive Order. The Sponsor shall not be required to offer rescission, to the extent the first year’s budget for operation does not increase by 25% or more during the pendency of the state of disaster emergency (see 13 NYCRR §§ 18.3(g)(1), 20.3(h)(1), 23.3(h)(1)); and
  • Rule requiring a sponsor to offer rescission if the first closing of a unit does not occur within first year of operation is tolled until May 16, 2020, but the sponsor must update the first year of operation, as necessary, by June 15, 2020 (see 13 NYCRR § 20.3(o)(12)).

Monday, April 13, 2020

Employer Alert - Executive Order on Essential Businesses

On April 12, employers were ordered to provide their staff with face coverings.

The Executive Order 202.16 provides:
For all essential businesses or entities, any employees who are present in the workplace shall be provided and shall wear face coverings when in direct contact with customers or members of the public. Businesses must provide, at their expense, such face coverings for their employees. This provision may be enforced by local governments or local law enforcement as if it were an order pursuant to section 12 or 12-b of the Public Health Law.  This requirement shall be effective Wednesday, April 15 at 8 p.m.
Employers must get their face coverings now!!!

Interestingly, the order does not require a specific type of face covering so it's conceivable that even a homemade option would satisfy the requirement. However, try to get N95 masks if you can - safety first. 



Friday, April 10, 2020

Spousal Refusal in Medicaid Planning

Do you need Medicaid and can’t wait for a 5-year lookback to qualify?

Then, consider Spousal Refusal, which with the Reverse Rule of Halves, represent 2 options to avoid the 5-year lookback requirements.

Spousal Refusal means that assets are transferred from the Medicaid applicant to such applicant’s spouse (the community spouse or the spouse not receiving Medicaid). Luckily, these transfers of assets to a spouse are exempt from the five-year look back period and thus, don’t trigger a penalty period.

Under Medicaid law, the community spouse can sign a Spousal Refusal which states that the community spouse refuses to make their income and resources available to the Medicaid applicant. This can be done especially when the community spouse may have assets over Medicaid’s allowable recourse limit or in excess of the income allowance.

In New York, Social Services Law §366(3)(a) provides that if the community spouse refuses or fails to provide the applicant with the necessary care and assistance, the medical assistance furnished to the applicant creates an implied contract with the community spouse. The cost of the medical assistance then may be recovered from the community spouse. However, this takes a lawsuit, which is often settled for far less than what was transferred, if the lawsuit is pursued in the first instance. Also, if repayment is pursued, the repayment rate is only based on the Medicaid reimbursement rate, which is significantly less than the private pay rate so there is very little to lose for a spouse to claim Spousal Refusal when they cannot plan in advance of the 5-year lookback.

Regardless, those needing Medicaid often have unique circumstances and everyone should get tailored legal advice on any strategy they seek to pursue before effectuating such strategy.


The Reverse Rule of Halves in Medicaid Planning

Medicaid provides a penalty period for the transfer of assets for less than its fair market value within 5-years of an individual’s application for Medicaid. The penalty is calculated by taking the amount of the transfer and dividing it by the average cost of one month of nursing home care in the region where the applicant resides.

A strategy used to maximize an applicant’s excess assets is the Reverse Rule of Halves. Essentially, this strategy allows the applicant to retain at least half of his excess assets and to become eligible for Medicaid sooner. When using this strategy, the Medicaid applicant gives 100% of their excess assets to a family member or multiple members. As this transfer may be a violation of Medicaid’s look back rule, a penalty period of Medicaid ineligibility will result. The family member, however, can return half of the gifted assets in installments back to the Medicaid applicant through a promissory note, so that the penalty period is also cut in half. The applicant, then, can use the returned assets to pay for care during the penalty period.

To utilize this strategy, the assets must be accessible either through a competent individual’s signature, joint ownership, or a Durable Power of Attorney. The return of assets will need to be done through a Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) compliant promissory note. To determine the value of assets that can be preserved with this strategy, the following factors are considered: 
  1. Total value of the applicant’s assets that constitutes excess resources for Medicaid purposes;
  2. Total monthly fixed income of the applicant;
  3. Actual private monthly cost of the nursing home that the applicant will be entering or is in; and
  4. Average monthly nursing home cost figure used by the Medicaid district in which the applicant resides to calculate transfer penalty periods.

While there is a specific procedure calculating the maximum amount, the amount gifted is usually approximately equal to the maximum value of assets that can be protected. To determine whether this applies to a specific applicant’s circumstances and to determine whether using the Reverse Rule of Halves is the best strategy for their specific needs, applicants are encouraged to retain counsel as early as possible.


Thursday, April 09, 2020

New York State Courts Release Reopening Details

As expected, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks has issued a new administrative order detailing the first stage of court operations for nonessential matters. A full copy of the order can be read HERE.

      1. Judges will commit themselves to deciding fully submitted motions in pending cases. 
      2. Judges will examine their dockets to find matters through which video conferencing can be helpful in resolving the matter. Parties may request a similar conference, where appropriate.
      3. Judges may conduct discovery and other ad hoc conferences to resolve disputes which should not require the filing of motion papers.

The Order also contains an important clarification and limitation: litigants may NOT file any new nonessential matters, and parties may NOT file any additional (new) papers in any pending nonessential matters.

This means no new motions, no new answers, no motion opposition papers, etc. Previous orders tolling deadlines in those matters still control. Currently deadlines are tolled by executive order of Governor Cuomo through May 7, 2020

Expect expansion of the courts' capabilities and filings in the near future after successful implementation of this phase.

Reminder that federal courts are still open and capable for accepting new matters and Lieb at Law attorneys are still litigating where court intervention is not needed. 

Empire State Development Issues Guidance on Real Estate Services

On March 9, 2020, Executive Order 202.6 mandated non-essential businesses to reduce their in-person workforce by 50% and later, by 100%. Today, the Empire State Development (ESD) issued guidance on Executive Order 202.6 to further determine which businesses are considered essential.

What does the ESD Guidance mean for real estate professionals?

Lawyers are permitted to continue to perform all work necessary, as long as it is performed remotely. Any in-person work must be only for supporting essential businesses or services, with the caveat that such work should still be conducted as remotely as possible.

Real estate services, including but not limited to, title searches, appraisals, permitting, inspections, recording, legal, financial and other services necessary to complete the transfer of real property shall be conducted remotely for ALL transactions.
  • In-person services may be conducted only to the extent legally necessary and in accordance with appropriate social distancing and cleaning/disinfecting protocols.
  • Brokerage and branch offices may be opened only to clients.

With ESD’s Guidance, along with Executive Order 202.10 and 202.14 which authorized remote notarization and electronic witnessing for deeds (which we blogged about HERE and HERE), real estate professionals can get back to work and close some deals.


Tuesday, April 07, 2020

Deeds & Estate Documents - Electronic Witnessing Now Permitted

Through Executive Order 202.14 and effective from April 7, 2020 to May 7, 2020, the act of witnessing as required in signing a will, healthcare proxy, disposition of remains, recording of instruments regarding real property, power of attorney and living trusts may now be done through audio-video technology.

To do so, the following requirements must be satisfied:
  • The person requesting that their signature be witnessed, if not personally known to the witness(es), must present valid photo ID to the witness(es) during the video conference, not merely transmit it prior to or after;
  • The video conference must allow for direct interaction between the person and the witness(es), and the supervising attorney, if applicable (e.g. no pre-recorded videos of the person signing);
  • The witnesses must receive a legible copy of the signature page(s), which may be transmitted via fax or electronic means, on the same date that the pages are signed by the person;
  • The witness(es) may sign the transmitted copy of the signature page(s) and transmit the same back to the person; and
  • The witness(es) may repeat the witnessing of the original signature page(s) as of the date of execution provided the witness(es) receive such original signature pages together with the electronically witnessed copies within thirty days after the date of execution.

Similarly, video notarization has been permitted since March 19, 2020 through Executive Order 202.7, which we blogged about HERE.

This is one major step closer to remote real estate closings and estate planning.

Now, the NYS legislature needs to make this permanent and not let Coronavirus innovation be a wasted opportunity.


Are You at Risk to Exposure to COVID-19? Designate a Guardian with this Form

By Executive Order 202.14, Governor Cuomo has permitted the use of this form for "any parent, a legal guardian, a legal custodian, or primary caretaker who works or volunteers in a health care facility or who reasonably believes that they may otherwise be exposed to COVID-19... [to] designate a standby guardian" for their children:

Designation of Standby Guardian
(NOTE: As used in this form, the term “parent” shall include a parent, a court-appointed guardian of an infant's person or property, a legal custodian, or a primary caretaker, and the term “child(ren)” shall include the dependant infant of a parent, court-appointed guardian, legal custodian or primary caretaker
I _________________________ hereby designate 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(name, home address and telephone number of standby guardian) as standby guardian of the person and property of my child(ren) (You may, if you wish, provide that the standby guardian's authority shall extend only to the person, or only to the property, of your child, by crossing out “person” or “property”, whichever is inapplicable, above.)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(name of child(ren)).

This appointment as the standby guardian of my child(ren) would be in the best interests of my child(ren) because:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(insert justification for appointment of this person as the standby guardian)

The standby guardian's authority shall take effect: (1) if my doctor concludes in writing that I am mentally incapacitated, and thus unable to care for my child(ren); (2) if my doctor concludes in writing that I am physically debilitated, and thus unable to care for my child(ren) and I consent in writing, before two witnesses, to the standby guardian's authority taking effect; (3) If I become subject to an administrative separation such that care and supervision of the child will be interrupted or cannot be provided; or (4) upon my death.
In the event the person I designate above is unable or unwilling to act as guardian for my child(ren), I hereby designate 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(name, home address and telephone number of alternate standby guardian), as standby guardian of my child(ren).
I also understand that my standby guardian's authority will cease sixty days after commencing unless by such date he or she petitions the court for appointment as guardian.
I understand that I retain full parental, guardianship, custodial or caretaker rights even after the commencement of the standby guardian's authority, and may revoke the standby guardianship at any time.
Signature: 
 
Address: 
 
Date: 
 
I declare that the person whose name appears above signed this document in my presence, or was physically unable to sign and asked another to sign this document, who did so in my presence. I further declare that I am at least eighteen years old and am not the person designated as standby guardian.
Witness' Signature: 
 
Address: 
 
Date: 
 
Witness' Signature: 
 
Address: 
 
Date: