A proposed bill (A2382), awaiting Gov. Hochul's signature, seeks to amend the civil practice rules in NY (CPLR) & Judiciary Law concerning predatory debt collection practices & consumer credit actions. 

Specifically, the Bill provides the following: 

• Cut the statute of limitations on consumer credit transactions in half (i.e., from 6 years to 3 years);
• Require all consumer credit action pleadings to include additional information (i.e., name of original creditor, last 4 digits of account number on most statement, date & amount of last payment, etc.);
• Allow defendants to raise improper service as a defense (i.e., unwaivable); 
• Require an additional notice of a pending consumer credit action be mailed to a defendant by clerk of the court; &
• Require additional steps for entry of default judgment against a debtor (i.e., affidavit by original creditor of facts related to debt/default in payment, affidavit of sale for every subsequent assignment of sale of debt to a third-party, affidavit of a witness of the plaintiff, including chain of title of debt, etc.). 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") recently released new guidance on religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The new guidance provides clarifications regarding employers' and employees' obligations, including the following:

• In requesting a religious accommodation, an employee must specify that there is a conflict between the vaccine requirement and their sincerely held religious beliefs.
• If an employer has an objective basis to question either the "religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief," the employer can seek additional supporting information from the employee regarding their religious beliefs.
• Objections to COVID-19 vaccinations based on social, political or personal preferences do not qualify as sincerely held religious beliefs.
• In assessing whether it can deny an accommodation request based on an undue hardship, an employer should consider factors such as whether the employee: works outdoors or indoors, works in a group setting, has close contact with other individuals, as well as the number of employees seeking a similar accommodation. 
• The employer can choose its preferred accommodation that would resolve the employee's conflict even if it is not the accommodation requested by the employee. 

Governor Hochul signed Bill A07373 into law yesterday which permits employees to petition their employer (in writing, within ten (10) days after a layoff, or in advance of a layoff) to implement a "Shared Work" program in lieu of a layoff. While employers are not required to implement a Shared Work program, employers must respond to the employees' petition in writing within seven (7) days and may not discriminate or retaliate against any employees who bring a petition.

The Shared Work program was formed to assist employers in avoiding layoffs and maintain trained workers during an economic downturn by allowing employees to receive partial unemployment benefits while working reduced hours. 

Be warned, the process just got a lot easier for a city / district court Judge to "order the removal of the building or an abatement of the condition" that is in violation of "any provision of the uniform code." 

Previously, there was a functional impediment when cities, towns, and villages sought to obtain such an order from the Court. While zoning violations were typically brought in city or district court, only a Supreme Court Justice had the authority to order the removal of the building or an abatement of the condition in violation. This obstructed enforcement of violations. 

Now, with A3028, having been signed into law on October 25, 2021, this is changed, and local courts, such as city and district courts, are empowered to render such an Order. 

Construction can be a nightmare, which can get even worse when your contractor doesn't have insurance to compensate you for their mistakes and damage. 

Based on A2202, which was signed into law by Governor Hochul on October 25, 2021, starting on April 23, 2022, contractors and subcontractors "shall disclose to the homeowner the existence of a property and/or casualty insurance policy that covers the scope of such contractor or subcontractor's employment should an insurance claim be filed resulting from losses arising from the work at such property. Such disclosure shall also include the contact information of the insurance company providing such property and/or casualty insurance, including a phone number and address."

While this is a move in the right direction, the damages for failure to comply are not enough to move the needle. It's expected that contractors will just ignore this law, as the cost of doing business, because the only damages available to a homeowner who doesn't receive information about the contractor's insurance is "a civil penalty not to exceed the greater of two hundred fifty dollars for each violation or five percent of the aggregate contract price specified in the home improvement contract; provided, however, that in no event shall the total penalty exceed twenty-five hundred dollars for each contract." 

Maybe, it's time to up the penalty too so that the government can make a meaningful impact in protecting homeowners who work with unscrupulous contractors? 

Have you ever wondered how the government assesses the value of your property for real estate tax purposes? 

Yes, there are 3 different types of appraisals, including comparable sales, income capitalization, and cost basis. However, each uses sales data of similar properties to develop a value. But, what is the legal definition of similar properties for purposes of a tax assessment? That has long been a hotly litigated. 

Now, starting on January 1, 2022, the answer will be that similar is defined as "properties located in proximate location to the subject property unless there is an inadequate number of appropriate sales or rentals within the same market." Plus, similarity refers to "age, condition, use or the sue at the time of sale, type of construction, location, design, physical features and economic characteristics including but not limited to similarities in occupancy and market rent." 

This new law, A894C, was signed into law by Governor Hochul on October 25, 2021. 

Effective January 26, 2022, A5144 will cause NYS private employees / independent contractors to have expanded whistleblower protection, under amended Labor Law 740, if they disclose or threaten to disclose, to a supervisor or to a public body, an activity, policy or practice of the employer, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule or regulation or that the employee reasonably believes poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety. 

This expanded protection is not only for employees, but also for former employees and independent contractors. With independent contractor protection, real estate brokers should be on the lookout for their agents lodging complaints to the Department of State, amongst other bodies. It's therefore time for every private business in NYS to button-up its compliance protocol and avoid whistleblowers because silencing them is no longer possible. Beyond tightening up their policy manuals, employers will be required to post signage about this new law at their places of employment.

This law is huge for employee / independent contractor rights and it's going to get messy quickly with lots of lawsuits to follow in the near term. Think about how many times an employer previously leverages its position to blackball a whistleblower from the industry. Now, actionable retaliation includes adversely impacting a whistleblower's future employment. 

This is huge, just watch the news and you will know how many whistleblowers are out there. Think about what's going on with Facebook. What about the Alec Baldwin shooting? Maybe, if New Mexico's law was as broad and protective as this new New York law, the Baldwin shooting / gun mishap wouldn't have happened. Yes, the film crew voiced complaints, but their position was limited. In New Mexico, an employee may not be discharged (or discriminated against) in retaliation for filing a complaint, instituting a proceeding, testifying in a proceeding, or exercising a right concerning violations of occupational health and safety standards. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 50-9-25. However, there is no private right of action (besides common law) and only the possibility of reinstatement and back pay if the secretary of environment chooses to pursue a retaliation claim. In contrast, a New York employee is now protected if they "reasonably believes [the employer's wrong] poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety" and that employee can sue in their own name within 2-years of the retaliation while seeking back pay, front pay, a civil penalty, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. 

This law will launch a new era of compliance throughout New York industry. Is your business ready? 

Upon the legalization of cannabis in New York State, Section 201-D of the New York Labor Law ("Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities") was amended to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees for using cannabis outside of the workplace on their own time. 

The Department of Labor ("DOL") recently issued guidance (in the form of frequently asked questions) regarding certain elements of the law:

1. Employee Discipline: While employers may not discipline employees for using cannabis while off-duty and off-premises, employers may take action against employees who "manifest specific articulable symptoms of impairment" on the job. The DOL guidance defines "articulable symptoms of impairment" as "objectively observable indications that the employee's performance of the duties of the position are decreased or lessened." For example: operating heavy machinery in a reckless manner would likely qualify. The DOL further specified that the following are not, without more, "articulable symptoms of impairment": 
• positive test for cannabis;
• odor of cannabis; and/or
• other typical observable signs of cannabis use.
2. Use at Work: Employers may prohibit cannabis use and possession during all work hours which include breaks and meals periods, even if the employee leaves the worksite, and when an employee is "on-call."
3. Drug Testing: Employers may not test employees for cannabis outside of the following circumstances:
• It is required by state or federal law for a particular position;
• The employer would lose a federal contract or federal funding; or
• The employee manifests "specific articulable symptoms of impairment" (although an employer may not discipline an employee based solely on a positive test, as stated above).  

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?