Partner Gregory Matalon featured on The Business Journal’s Mass Mutual Business Owner’s Perspective Podcast
CBMS Partner Gregory Matalon was a guest on “The Business Journal’s Mass Mutual Business Owner’s Perspective Podcast” with Brian Bushlack. Many business owners don’t have a succession plan or estate plan in order. Without a plan, the business and business owner’s family may suffer. Click the link below to listen and learn more about the importance of planning.
The novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic has created economic hardships for businesses and individuals that have and will continue to affect contractual obligations. New York law provides several defenses to fulfilling your contractual obligations that may be available during this time. In some situations, invoking these defenses may temporarily suspend or eliminate performance obligations, while in others they may terminate the contract. CBMS can advise you on strategies to address potential breaches, either through renegotiating contracts or in litigation, if negotiation strategies fail.
The place to start is to review your contracts for provisions that may excuse failure to perform or provide other alternatives to timely performance. These provisions may have notice requirements, which are important to be aware of early.
Your contract may include a “force majeure” (or “Act of God”) provision that may protect parties if events beyond their control, such as wars, floods, earthquakes, or travel bans, make it impossible to perform contractual obligations. In New York, contracts must explicitly include a force majeure provision to be able to use this doctrine.
New York courts typically interpret force majeure provisions narrowly. If the provision lists specific events, courts will excuse performance only if one of these events occurred. If your contract includes a force majeure clause that lists “pandemics,” “epidemics,” “viral outbreaks,” “quarantines,” “travel bans,” or other similar terms, it may be possible to use it to excuse or delay performance of contractual obligations as a result of COVID-19.
If your contract includes a force majeure clause, you must also be prepared to show that COVID-19 made it impossible for you to perform and that you made reasonable efforts to avoid failure to perform but were unsuccessful. You may also have to show that COVID-19 was unforeseeable at the time you entered the contract. Therefore, if you entered the contract after COVID-19 had become a global pandemic, it may also be difficult for you to use this provision.
There are several other defenses that may excuse potential breaches in New York.
Termination: Some contracts include provisions that allow a party to terminate the contract under certain circumstances. These provisions may apply in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extension of Time: Your contract may include provisions that permit extensions of time if unexpected events occur. Even if your contract does not, it may be worthwhile to try to negotiate in good faith an extension with the other party if performance will become possible when the effects of COVID-19 lessen. These negotiations may help you avoid litigation.
Explore Your Other Options
If your contracts do not include the clauses discussed above, or if the clauses are ambiguous or inapplicable, you may still have options. New York courts have created certain defenses that, while not contained within the four corners of the contract, may be used to try to avoid liability for breach of contract: Frustration of purpose, impossibility, or impracticability.
Frustration of purpose excuses failure to fulfill contractual obligations when an unforeseen event makes a contract virtually worthless.
Impossibility excuses breach of contract when an unanticipated event destroys the subject matter or the means of performance of the contract such that performance is objectively impossible.
Impracticability under the Uniform Commercial Code may be used if the contract is for the sale of goods and a contingency occurs that makes performance impracticable and the nonoccurrence of the contingency was a basic assumption of the contract.
The information in this article is continuously changing and being updated. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or business advice. In no way is Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP advising that it is appropriate to only follow the information listed here. If you or your organization require assistance, please contact Elizabeth Cate Esq., email@example.com, Joseph Milano Esq., firstname.lastname@example.org, or Peter Sanders Esq., email@example.com .
Over the past few weeks, our firm has received increased inquiries regarding estate planning options and considerations. While the needs of each family and individual differ, many of the questions focus on the basics: If I get sick, who will make health and financial decisions for me? Upon my death, who will handle my affairs, receive my assets, and take care of my young children (and pets)? How should I organize my important documents and where should I keep my documents?
If you are reviewing your estate planning documents, focus on the essentials. If you have not yet created estate planning documents, you may wish to use this bit of “downtime” to think about these issues. Below are some things to consider:
1) Health Care Proxy and Living Will
- A health care proxy allows you to appoint an agent to make health decisions for you if you are unable to do so. Your agent must be over the age of 18, and should be someone that understands and will abide by your wishes and instructions. You may also designate successor agents. The health care proxy should also provide a HIPAA release, so that your agent can receive your medical records and information.
- A living will allows you to state your wishes for medical treatment, so that the doctors, hospital staff, and your health care agent are guided accordingly. Review your living will to determine if your wishes are accurately stated.
2) Durable Power of Attorney
- A durable power of attorney allows you to designate an agent (or agents and/or successor agents) to act on your behalf in financial matters. These actions can include, among other things: real estate, banking, and business transactions, access to digital assets, and authority to handle personal and other tax matters. Review your power of attorney and the authority that you have provided to your agent.
- Your agent must be over the age of 18, and should be someone that you trust to make financial decisions in your best interest.
- When appropriate for tax and elder law planning, a statutory gift rider can be attached to the power of attorney to provide your agent with gifting powers and limitations.
3) Last Will and Testament – Your will is one of the central documents to provide for the distribution of your property.
- In your will, your executor (the person(s) or entity that manages your estate) will be responsible for collecting assets, paying expenses and taxes, and ultimately distributing your remaining assets as provided in your will.
• Choosing your executor is important. An individual executor must be over the age of 18, and not be a convicted felon (other legal requirements may also apply). Your Executor should have the proper balance of management ability and personal insight into your family and your wishes. Your executor will also be responsible for making various tax elections that will affect your beneficiaries.
• It is important to provide adequate discretion and powers for your executor depending on the nature of your assets. For example: If you have a business, does your will allow your executor to continue your business?
- Review your current assets and liabilities and how they are titled.
• Prepare a financial summary.
• Your will only controls assets which are held in your name alone, and without named beneficiaries; jointly held assets and assets with named beneficiaries pass outside the will.
• Review applicable current federal and state estate and income tax laws with your advisors.
- Have you addressed major life changes, such as marriages, divorces, births and deaths?
- Once you have determined who will receive your assets, it is important to decide how each beneficiary will receive his/her inheritance – outright or in a trust. There are various tax, management and asset protection reasons to create a trust. Your will can create one or more trusts that state how the assets will be invested, managed and distributed. Your selection of trustee(s) and successor trustees is important. Trustee discretion and powers are also important, and should be reviewed.
• Common types of trusts created in a Will include:
• Trusts for individuals under a certain age
• Supplemental Needs Trusts
• Credit Shelter/Renunciation/Disclaimer Trusts
• QTIP Trusts
• Generation-Skipping Trust
• Trusts for asset protection/management
• Qualified Subchapter S Trusts (consider if you own an interest in a Subchapter S corporation)
• Pet Trusts
4) You may have also created one or more lifetime trusts for estate tax planning, elder planning or other purposes. Confirm that your trusts still satisfy your goals. When reviewing the trust agreement, focus on (i) the assets titled to the trust, (ii) the appointed and successor Trustees, (iii) the current and ultimate beneficiaries of the trust, and (iv) the Trustees’ authority to manage, invest and distribute the assets.
5) Review all beneficiary designations to confirm they are consistent with your plan. Confirm that the individuals/charities you wish to benefit are properly and clearly described. It is important that certain assets, such as retirement accounts, have designated beneficiaries.
6) Clients often ask where to store their documents. Documents should be kept in a safe place that is accessible to the individuals appointed in your documents. If you have stored documents in your safe deposit box, please make sure that your agent(s) can access the box during your lifetime, and that your nominated executor can access the box after your death. If the documents cannot be accessed, additional steps will be required.
To aid your agents, executors and trustees, you may wish to create folders containing:
- Business, financial and personal statements/documents,
- A password list,
- Names and contact information of your family members and friends, medical professionals, legal and financial advisors, etc.,
- Recent business and individual income tax returns, and
- Funeral, burial, and other instructions.
If you wish to create, discuss or amend your plan, we are available to assist, and can do so online without an office visit. Most importantly, we hope that you are taking steps to stay safe, and we wish you and your family good health.
If you have any questions, please contact our estate planning and elder law attorneys:
Gregory L. Matalon, Esq., Partner, firstname.lastname@example.org
Erik M. Olson, Esq., Associate, email@example.com
Robert S. Barnett, Esq., Partner, firstname.lastname@example.org
Stuart H. Schoenfeld, Esq., Partner, email@example.com
Jordan Kanzer, Esq., Associate, firstname.lastname@example.org
Damianos Markou, Esq., Counsel, email@example.com
Monica P. Ruela, Esq., Associate, firstname.lastname@example.org
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: This memorandum provides general information on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. It does not provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters we discuss here. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this memorandum, please call your Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP contact.
CBMS Partner Robert Barnett recently presented a lecture through Lorman discussing how to utilize passive activity losses including recent tax legislation and cases.
With so many new tax rules, it is important to be informed before the upcoming tax season Lorman has graciously offered this 93-minute lecture to our friends and colleagues at a 50% courtesy discount. The course is eligible for 1.5 CPE credits in Connecticut, New Jersey and 9 other states.
Click the link below if you would like to access it as either an OnDemand Webinar, an audio file and reference manual delivered on USB flashdrive, or MP3 download of the webinar along with reference manual.
CBMS is pleased to report the success of our 5th annual Interchurch Center Conference. This year, titled ‘”Reenvisioning Mission and Ministry: Creative Strategies for the Church of Tomorrow” had amazing speeches from all of our speakers, beginning with our Keynote address: How We Gather’s Casper ter Kuile. Casper is the co-founder of Sacred Design Lab, a research and design consultancy working to create a culture of belonging and becoming. His engaging speech gave audience members opportunities to reflect and converse with each other, but also to ask thought-provoking questions and learn about the parallels of gathering in different circumstances.
Bill Woolsey, founder of the FiveTwo Network, and Melissa Spas, Director of Education and Engagement of the Lake Institute on Philanthropy and Giving, rounded out the rest of the speakers with their own respective talks on Christianity’s place in leadership, and the ways beyond monetarily that we can contribute philanthropically.
The conference was wrapped up with two panels, first a diverse panel of pastors from various backgrounds and denominations speaking of their various experiences as leaders of the faith in New York. The Reverends Cleotha Robertson, Andrew Durbidge, William Critzman, and Lenny Duncan delivered touching anecdotes about the different struggles that come with leading a congregation, being LGBT, not having enough money to renovate appropriately, and more. Ultimately their different backgrounds demonstrate the individual perspectives that they bring to the table in order to solve the problems that they all face.
Finally, the Council of Church Advisors, a not-for-profit group that was a main sponsor for the Conference held a panel with its members discussing how to spearhead solutions from different professional avenues. They are a diverse group of individuals from different professions that have joined together to help address and fix the ailments presented to most modern congregations, and from a multi-faceted approach work with leaders of said congregations.
We hope all who attended enjoyed themselves and took something valuable away from the conference. Here’s to another successful conference next year!
I write this on 9-11-19 remembering that sad and infamous day eighteen years ago. Sadness continues to overwhelm me as I recall all those innocent victims. I recall especially also those 60 children who were all students in the Lutheran Schools of New York who on that day lost either a parent or a grandparent. I recall those trapped, those who leapt to their death. And I recall the public servants who did all they could to assist. Painfully I remember those misguided men who perpetrated this unthinkable evil-and did it in the name of God.
I remember with special admiration and gratitude the many who rendered all kinds of supportive services to those so terribly affected by this event. I recall with special gratitude and admiration the incredible work of Lutheran Disaster Relief New York under the extremely capable leadership of John Scibilia.
In the midst of the throng that passes by in my mental image I recall one who was not at the Twin Towers that day but later assisted many of those affected by that disaster-HOWARD CAPELL. Howie was an incredibly gifted and big-hearted New York lawyer. Howie was my personal lawyer and he was the official lawyer for The Lutheran Schools Association-and of many other Lutheran friends, churches and schools.
Of special interest is the fact that he was the persistent, patient, unrelenting and capable attorney for Dr. David Benke. Dr. Benke was the President (Bishop) of The Atlantic District of the LCMS. He joined thousands in a public outpouring of prayers at Yankee Stadium praying for all those affected by 9-11. Some high church officials deemed his prayerful participation contrary to Lutheran doctrine and practice and sought to have President Benke defrocked. Howie was his legal representative and hung in there for years until Benke was finally cleared
Howie did more. He pleaded the case of many public service employees or dependents who lost their lives or whose lives were severely negatively affected by all that went on in, under, and near to the those fallen towers. Of special note was the appropriate benefits which he secured for many police officers and their families. I have written in a previous blog how he became known throughout the city for his tenacious advocacy and how police officers quickly recognized his automobile, cleared traffic for him, found him immediate parking spaces-always free and within close walking distance of his destination-even in the midst of Times Square.
Previous to the 9-11 situation Howie was always there for The Lutheran Schools in New York and elsewhere. He fended off suits brought by upset parents or angry former teachers. He was especially helpful in more than one case through his unbelievable contacts and pleadings with the IRS and other government agencies. On at least three occasions he aided schools which had withheld FICA payments from employees but never sent them in the IRS or Social Security. In each case Howie used his skills and contacts to have fines written off and the balances reduced.
He helped write all the documents to have The Lutheran Schools Association be properly registered with government agencies -and he did it all pro bono.
He wrote my will. When by God’s special grace to me to I made a significant profit on an investment he insisted that I tithe the profits with a gift through a church related charitable remainder trust. Now 25 years later I still get a generous annual interest payment and at my death a trio of my favorite causes will receive their remainder.
And he was fun to be with. He was not a drinker of alcohol but always invited his guests to enjoy a libation. He took me to New York steak houses that were way out of my price range. He brought guests to benefit golf events and purchased more lottery tickets than anyone else. Of special interest to me was when he and Sheila accompanied me on an incredible tour of China (including the whole Eastern section) and Tibet. He met everybody, left the group when he wanted to do his own thing, and made friends with all whom he encountered. And a couple years after that China trip he joined me and a couple others for an unbelievable and unheard of “week-end expedition to Hong Kong for golf”.
He was a strong family man and it was fun to watch and listen to his family interactions. His sons wisely chose not to be his business partners-and loved him dearly. His marvelous wife Sheila and he was always at odds on foreign travel, eating choices, how much time to spend in their Florida home and lots of other stuff – but always loved each other, stood up for and by each other and were 100% mutually faithful.
Howie loved doing work not only for Lutheran churches and schools but also for many other churches and he had the reputation as the right one to go for if any religious organization in New York ever needed legal advice or representation.
His heritage was 100% Jewish. He was not one to be overly committed to observing the Sabbath. But especially in his later days as he (way too early) suffered and eventually died of cancer it was important to him that appropriate religious rituals and expectations be observed.
And so today I remember my friend, my advocate, my model, my brother: HOWARD CAPELL.
Christopher Wright’s article, “Can a Combined Zoning Lot Include a Partial Tax Lot?” was published in the New York Law Journal Volume 261 – No. 120, on June 24th, 2019.
Christopher serves as the primary zoning counsel for CBMS.
CBMS Attorney Secures Plea Deal that Removes Pro Bono Client from Tennessee’s Death Row After 18 Years
Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP attorney Elizabeth Cate recently successfully negotiated a favorable plea agreement for a CBMS pro bono client who was facing the death penalty for the second time on capital murder charges in Memphis, Tennessee. As the ABA Death Penalty Project noted “a term-of-years plea deal for a reduced charge on a remand capital case is extremely rare.” Ms. Cate and her co-counsel also uncovered new evidence that will provide the client, Andrew Thomas, with a basis to challenge his federal convictions and life sentence on charges stemming from the same 1997 armed robbery for which he faced charges in Tennessee state court.
Under the plea agreement, reached on the morning that opening arguments in Mr. Thomas’s re-trial were scheduled to begin, Mr. Thomas entered an “Alford plea” to one charge of Murder in the Second Degree and in return, the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office agreed to a sentence of 25 years. An “Alford plea” is a guilty plea under which the defendant does not admit that he is guilty of the crime charged, but admits that, if he went to trial, the evidence presented by the prosecution would likely result in his conviction. Under local rules, Mr. Thomas will receive credit for the 22 years he has already served in custody, making him eligible for release from state custody within the next three years.
Ms. Cate began working on Mr. Thomas’s federal and state habeas corpus petitions in 2013 while at her prior firm, which acquired the case through a referral from the ABA Death Penalty Project. In 2017, she and her team successfully vacated Mr. Thomas’s state conviction and death sentence for felony murder charges in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of the Sixth Circuit found that Mr. Thomas’s conviction and death sentence should be reversed because the state prosecutor had a duty to disclose to Mr. Thomas’s trial counsel a $750 payment that law enforcement made to Mr. Thomas’s ex-wife after her testimony against him at his 1998 federal trial on armed robbery and weapons possession charges relating to the 1997 armed robbery. Mr. Thomas’s ex-wife also testified at his state trial for capital murder charges three years later stemming from the delayed death of the armored car guard shot during the robbery. Mr. Thomas’s lawyers in both of his trials were never told about the payment. The Sixth Circuit found that “the prosecutor had a duty to disclose this payment rather than allow the witness to commit perjury by denying its existence” and that failing to disclose this evidence was “particularly egregious.”
A re-trial in Shelby County criminal court was scheduled for July 2019. Ms. Cate, along with appointed Memphis counsel Claiborne Ferguson and Mike Working, were prepared to challenge the state’s claims that he shot the guard in the robbery and that the guard’s eventual death over two years after the shooting was a direct result of the gunshot wound inflicted during the robbery. After four days of jury selection, and extensive negotiations with the Shelby County DA’s Office, the prosecutor agreed to the deal that Ms. Cate and local counsel proposed – an Alford plea to Murder in the Second Degree with a 25-year sentence.
June 25, 2019
Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019
A.8281/S.6458 (C.36 of the Laws of 2019)
Adopted June 14, 2019
On Friday, June 14, 2019 Albany lawmakers approved, and Governor Cuomo signed, legislation entitled The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. A technical correction by way of a Chapter Amendment passed the Legislature on June 20, 2019 and was signed by the Governor on June 25, 2019. This legislation will significantly change New York State’s rent laws.
In prior years, the rent regulation law was up for examination and renewal, based on whether a housing crisis still existed, every 4-8 years. Now the rules have no expiration date. Additionally, other municipalities outside of New York City and its neighboring counties of Rockland, Westchester and Nassau may also opt-in to the provisions of stabilization.
A.8433/S.6615 – Part Q (C.39 of the Laws of 2019)
Effective Date: June 14, 2019
The Chapter Amendment provides a series of technical corrections and edits to the adopted bill. The Rent Regulations sections of the bill (Part Q) are retroactive to the same date as Chapter 36 of the Laws of 2019.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO RENT STABILIZATION LAW
Please note, in parentheses is the relevant sub-section of A.8281/S.6458 for reference.
Changes to stabilization:
– Sunset Provision: Eliminates the sunset provision of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) and makes rent regulation permanent (Part A).
– Extension of the ETPA state-wide as an opt-in program by individual counties meeting the criteria of a housing emergency, as defined by a vacancy rate of less than 5% (Part G).
– High-rent vacancy and High income/high rent (luxury) deregulation are eliminated (Part D).
– “Owner use” provision limited to a single unit for a “immediate and compelling necessity” and lowers the tenure provision from 20 years to 15. Additionally, tenant is due damages and reasonable attorneys’ fee for fraudulent statements (Part I).
– Non-profit status: Units rented by non-profits for homeless must remain in stabilization (Part J).
– Overcharges – extends the overcharge look back from four to six years, allows for the examination of all available rental history, no “safe harbor” for proactively providing refunds (Part F).
– $10 fee is increased to $20 per unit to offset the cost of administering the ETPA (Part K).
– DHCR is subject to greater accountability through an annual public reporting requirement (Part L). According to the Chapter Amendment, it must promulgate its rules and regulations and have its centralized electronic retention system operational by June 14, 2020.
Changes that impact 421a/Affordable New York
– As amended by the Chapter Amendment, A.8433/S.6615, there are no changes to the 421a or Affordable New York programs’ stabilization status.
– However, those changes outlined in Part M that affect all rental units would apply, and if an owner sought a co-op or condo conversion, those changes as outlined in Part N would apply as well.
– Elimination of the vacancy allowance.
Status of De-Regulated Units prior to the 2019 Act
- The Chapter Amendment adds clarifying language that units lawfully deregulated prior to the adoption of The Housing Stability & Tenant Protection Act of 2019, Chapter 36 of the Laws of 2019 are not being re-regulated.
Changes that impact the ability to raise rents to cover expenses or improvements:
– 20% vacancy allowance and longevity bonus are eliminated (Part B) and prohibits a rent guidelines board (RGB) from instituting vacancy allowances (Part C)
– Preferential rents cannot be increased to the legal rent at renewal unless such rents are set pursuant to a regulatory agreement with a local government agency and uses project based rental assistance (HUD Funding) where the rents are set by a federal, state or local governmental agency (Part E)
– Rent controlled apartments now limit the maximum collectible rent increase to a five-year average of RGB increases and eliminates the fuel pass through (Part H)
– Individual Apartment Improvements (IAIs) are significantly curtailed along with increased oversight by DHCR (Part K):
o Improvements limited to $15,000 cap that can be expended on no more than three separate IAIs within a 15-year period.
o Licensed contractors must be used and there can be no common ownership between the landlord and the contractor or vendor.
o Increases shall be 1/168 for buildings with 35 or less units or 1/180 for buildings with more than 35 units, for a period of 30 years.
o Surcharges are eligible for increases but such increases must also be removed at the end of 30 years.
o Mandates DHCR to create a notification and documentation procedure and the electronic retention of such.
o The Chapter Amendment requires that forms for tenant consent of IAIs are provided in English and the top 6 other languages spoken in the state.
o The Chapter Amendment clarifies that new caps on rent increases for IAIs will go into effect at the next lease renewal for affected tenants.
– Major Capital Improvements (MCIs) are significantly curtailed along with increased oversight by DHCR (Part K):
o Increases shall be capped at 2% for a period of 30 years, amortized at a 12-year period for buildings with 35 or less units or 12.5 years for buildings with more than 35 units.
o For any previously granted MCIs between June 16, 2012 and June 14, 2019, increases will be capped at 2% instead of 6%. The Chapter Amendment clarifies that new caps on rent increases for MCIs will go into effect at the next lease renewal for affected tenants.
o Surcharges are eligible for increases but increases must cease at the end of 30 years.
o Licensed contractors must be used and there can be no common ownership between the landlord and the contractor or vendor.
o DHCR must set a schedule of reasonable costs for MCIS, included a ceiling for what can be recovered, and prohibits group work done in an individual unit that is otherwise not an improvement to an entire building.
o The law prohibits MCI in buildings with fewer than 35% of units that are stabilized.
o The law specifically prohibits MCIs if the landlord is receiving federal grants or insurance proceeds for the repair. However, insurance and Federal recovery aid can take multiple years to process, leaving MCIs as the bridge to recover a portion of the costs. Insurance and recovery aid often do not cover the full cost of repairs following a natural disaster.
o DHCR must inspect and audit for the review of 25% of the filed MCI applications.
o Tenants have a 60-day comment/review period.
o DHCR must provide reasons for approval or denial of a MCI application.
Changes that impact ALL rental units
Part M, entitled “Statewide Housing Security and Tenant Protection Act of 2019” enacts the following changes which would apply to all rental units, regardless of stabilization status:
– When signing a new lease:
o Limits security deposits to one month’s rent.
o Bans the use of “tenant blacklists.”
o Limits application fees.
– For lease renewals:
o Prohibits denying lease renewals or an unreasonable rent increase as a retaliatory measure when code complaints have been made.
o Aside from what the lease itself may state, if the owner intends to raise the rent above 5% or intends to not renew the tenancy, the owner must send notice. If the tenant has occupied the unit for less than one year, 30 days’ notice is required. For a tenant that occupies a unit for more than one year but less than two and has a lease of more than one year but less than two, 60 days’ notice is required. For tenants that have occupied a unit more than two years or a lease term or at least two years, 90 days’ notice is required.
o Requires written notice of late payments.
– When ending a lease:
o Provides a “cure” path on behalf of the tenant to fix any issues to secure the full or partial security deposit amount.
o Limits recoverable rents for early lease termination.
o Warranty of habitability is amended to include a duty to repair, thus extending the warranty to include a retaliatory eviction due to complaints on housing condition. A finding of retaliatory eviction carries severe penalties.
– Changes to landlord-tenant proceedings:
o For all apartments, rent stabilized or fair market, RPL 226-c requires notice of rent increase of more than 5% or a notice of non-renewal depending on the term of the lease and RPL 232-a requires this notice to be served by a process server service, not mail.
o For all apartments, under RPL 232-e, a Landlord has a duty to mitigate damages.
o For all apartments, RPL 238-a limits fees that can be sought in a summary proceeding except if provided by regulation or statute.
o For all apartments, RPAPL 702 definition of Rent.
o Rent demands are now 14 days, not 3.
o RPAPL 745: Where you used to be able to seek use and occupancy in court as of the date the (notice of petition and petition) NPP was served, after Tenant adjournment of more than 30 days and get dismissal of defenses and counterclaims if not paid, now it is 60 days, a Tenant request to seek counsel does not count, the order to pay is only as of the date of the order not back to when NPP served and it must now be on written notice and if not paid pursuant to the court order, remedy is not dismissal of defenses and counterclaims, but a trial subject to Court’s scheduling. No Court order if Tenant can make a colorable claim of overcharge or hazardous or immediately hazardous conditions.
o RPAPL 749: Marshall notice now 14 not 3 days. Eliminated that issuance of warrant cancels lease [impacts bankruptcy], Court now has power at any time to stay, vacate or restore. Now Tenant in a nonpayment proceeding can pay anytime before execution of warrant. Before it used to be 5 days.
o RPAPL 753: Instead of court having discretion to give only up to 6-month stay if pay use and occupancy, it is now one year and where it applied only to tenants, it now applies to occupants. Factors to consider include extreme hardship for the Tenant. Changes the time to cure defaults after trial from 10 to 30 days.
Co-Op/Condo Conversions (Part N).
– Removes eviction plans from future filings;
– Prohibits unreasonable increases for eligible seniors or disabled tenants who are unable to purchase their units.
– Conversion rate increased to purchase of 51% of all apartments solely by tenants in occupancy.
– Exclusive right to purchase for 90 days with a six-month extension.
Mobile & Manufactured Home (MMH) tenant protections, including provisions around rent-to-own contracts, rent increases, a bill of rights, and changes in use to the underlying land are covered in Part O.
This commentary is only an illustrative guide intended to direct the reader to further investigation and due diligence. It is not comprehensive and the full text must be reviewed in order to address most questions. This does not constitute legal advice nor can it be taken as a substitute for counsel with an attorney after full disclosure of all information pertinent to a client or potential client’s particular situation.