This question is on the ballot on November 2nd.

The answer seems simple, but with early voting starting in New York this Saturday, October 23rd, have you considered the implications of Proposal 2 of the statewide ballot, to make New Yorkers have a constitutional right to "clean air and water, and a healthful environment?"

In 1996, the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, explained that a constitutional right may provide for an "action for damages for violation... against a government or individual defendants." However, the Court did not say that all constitutional violations give way to a damages action, in that case, Brown v. State. So, it remains unclear if courts will permit private citizens to be awarded damages from polluters if Proposal 2 is passed in the statewide ballot. That being said, Senator Robert Jackson, who sponsored Proposal 2, believes that the amendment will give New Yorkers "the right to take legal action for a clean environment," per BallotPedia. 

Do you think that private citizens should be awarded damages for suing companies that damage our clean air, water and a healthful environment? Shouldn't the money go back to the State to fix the damage rather than into a private individual's pocket? 

Where is the line? 

Should truck drivers be sued if they don't switch to electric vehicles? 

How about private jet passengers? 

Shouldn't this be thought-out before we open the private lawsuit free-for-all? 

Attorney Andrew Lieb interviewed on PIX11 NY 10pm news on New Jersey vaccine mandate for school staff and state workers.

Starting on October 12, 2021, discrimination cases before the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) are no longer permitted to conclude with a private settlement. 

Instead, if settlement is achieved, DHR is now requiring "complainant’s attorney [] to state in writing why they are seeking a discontinuance and, if the reason is private settlement, the discontinuance will not be granted." Rather, "the matter [will be resolved] through an Order after stipulation that indicates the terms of the settlement or to proceed through the agency’s public hearing process." 

The purpose of this new rule, according to DHR, is "to ensure that the terms of any settlement comply with our basic standards and do not violate public policy."

Further, given that three-quarters of discrimination cases result in settlement, DHR will be able to collect better data of what is happening in resolving these disputes by monitoring settlements. Hopefully, DHR will actively compile this data and inform the public of their findings so that litigants can make smart, informed decisions, when settling cases into the future. 

On October 8, 2021, Governor Hochul signed S6492 into law and now the five eastern towns (East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton and Southold) are authorized to establish community housing funds to be funded by a supplemental real estate transfer tax.

Before any additional taxes are going to be levied, each town's board will need to enact a local law to that effect. 

Do you think that taxes should be raised on real estate sales to create affordable housing?

Before you answer that question, do you agree that the East End is unaffordable for much of its labor force?

The public purpose of this bill is "to establish a dedicated fund to provide needed housing opportunities" for "moderate income and working class local residents."

So, do you think your town should enact a local law, raise transfer taxes, and increase its supply of affordable housing? 

Attorney Andrew Lieb was featured as a guest on Black News Channel discussing the video showing a police officer dragging a paralyzed man out of his car.

Everywhere you look, the media is saying TX isn't permitting employer vaccine mandates, but that is NOT what is happening. To be clear, vaccine mandates are still permissible in TX. 

You can read Governor Abbott's Executive Order GA-40 here. 

As you can clearly see, all the Order prohibits are vaccine mandates that do not provide a mechanism for those who object to the "vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19." 

This is almost entirely consistent with existing law and how, just about, every court case is shaking out with respect to vaccine mandates, with a few minor wrinkles that can't be ignored. The two wrinkles in the Order are:

1. Not utilizing the term "sincerely held" prior to "religious beliefs," which thereby seems to expand the standard in protecting religion, which doesn't appear legally problematic; and, 
2. Misstating the disability / handicap prong. 
• Under existing disability / handicap law, an accommodation is never available just because the existence of a disability / handicap renders the policy (i.e., vaccination) unnecessary, which appears to be the intention of the wording where it states, "including prior recovery from COVID-19." 
• Instead, under existing law, an accommodation is only available where a disability or handicap requires an accommodation for equality to exist. Stated otherwise, one needs a qualifying disability to receive an accommodation in the first instance, without it, there is nothing to accommodate. 
• To be clear, under existing law, having had recovered from COVID-19 is NOT a disability that is recognized. We wonder how this aspect of the Order will shake out and more so, how the Supremacy Clause will shake out if / when the Federal Government responds.  

Do you see the distinction? Does the distinction matter?