Archive

Author Archive

NYC Law Requires Reasonable Accommodation for Pregnant Employees

April 10th, 2014 Comments off
2014 changes to the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) will treat an employee’s pregnancy much the same as a physical disability, requiring city employers with four or more employees to reasonably accommodate their employees’ pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, so long as the accommodation enables the employee to perform the essential functions of her position.
Reasonable Accommodation under the NYCHRL is defined as an accommodation that does not cause the employer an “undue hardship” which may involve evaluating the nature and cost of the accommodation and the size and financial resources of the employer.
To comply with the NYCHRL, employers must also provide a written notice of the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition and distribute this notice to new employees at the start of their employment and to existing employees within 120 days of the law’s effective date.  Employers that violate the NYCHRL can face private actions and liability for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Categories: Employment Tags: ,

New York City Earned Sick Time Act

April 1st, 2014 Comments off

New legislation is expected to significantly expand the provisions of the New York City Earned Sick Time Act (Act). The Act, which takes effect on April 1, 2014, requires most private employers to provide up to 40 hours of paid or unpaid sick leave per year to employees working in New York City.  The proposed amendments to the Act will expand the Act’s paid sick leave requirements to cover employers with between five and fifteen employees, expand the definition of “family member,” and increase employers’ notice and record keeping requirements.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Categories: Employment Tags: , ,

New Law Makes Significant Changes to New York Estate and Gift Tax

April 1st, 2014 Comments off
The New York State legislature passed a budget bill on April 1, 2014 which will increase the New York State estate tax exemption over a four year period to $5,250,000 and, by 2019, bring the state estate tax exemption in conformity with the federal estate tax exemption.  The increased amounts are as follows:
– April 1, 2014 $2,062,500
– April 1, 2015 $3,125,000
– April 1, 2016 $4,187,500
– April 1, 2017 $5,250,000
– January 1, 2019 $5,000,000 (plus the cost of living index from 2010 – thus making the exclusion the same as the Federal exclusion amount).
In addition, the top New York State estate tax rate will be gradually reduced from 16% to 10% over the same four year period and the generation skipping transfer tax enacted in 1999 will be repealed.  More significantly, the new law will require that the value of any lifetime taxable gifts made by a New York resident decedent after March 31, 2014 be added back into the New York gross estate.  This will increase the amount of estate taxes due.   Contact Kiley, Kiley & Kiley to determine if and how the new law will impact your estate plans.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Black Ice- The Emergency Doctrine

February 4th, 2014 Comments off
So, you were foolish enough to stay in New York instead of moving to Miami?  Okay, we all can’t retire and drink margaritas on the beach.  Picture this scenario: yesterday morning, when it was 20 degrees God dropped 12 inches of snow on Long Island.  Later in the afternoon the temperature rose to 50 degrees and the sun partially melted the snow.  Overnight the temperature dropped again to 20 degrees and the road became slick in some places with dreaded “black ice.”   Then, the temperature rose again and the sun shone down as you drove to work this morning.  Whether you believe the scientific warnings of “Global Climate Change” or the guy with the placard on 42nd St. and Broadway warning that the “End is Near,” these erratic weather patterns are a fact of life in the Northeast.
To continue our hypothetical, the driver immediately behind you collides into the rear of your car.  “It wasn’t my fault,” he claims.  He didn’t know that the road was slick and he ran into your car even though he was driving carefully.  Ordinarily, under New York law, a driver who strikes the rear of a car in front of his is presumed to be negligent.  But what if he was driving carefully and tried to stop  but couldn’t because the road was too slippery.  Is he still negligent?   The “Emergency Doctrine” exonerates him if he is faced with a sudden condition, which he could not have reasonably anticipated. Not to worry, the doctrine only applies if he’s faced with a sudden condition which he could not have reasonably anticipated.  Whether the driver believes in climate change or not, he should have anticipated that there “could” be black ice on the roadway.  Under these circumstances the Emergency Doctrine will not apply and his conduct is negligent.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS WHEN WE DIE?

May 7th, 2012 Comments off

Recently, an aunt of mine was clearing out some personal items and came across a letter my grandfather had written to his mother-in-law (my great-grandmother) soon after my grandparents’ honeymoon in 1924.  It was a beautiful letter- the kind that people years ago were skilled at writing, a skill not often displayed these days in e-mail, texts and on social media. Lets face it, the art of letter writing has been lost in our digital age.  Traditionally, people have always hung on to such letters or cards for posterity- keepsakes to remember and pass on to a child or grandchild.  Is this also being lost in our digital age?

As recently reported by NPR, consider the plight of a mother in Portland, Oregon, who continued to use her son’s Facebook account to read postings on his wall after his accidental death.  Her son’s wall contained photos and postings from personal friends, many of which she had never seen before. However, when Facebook learned of the son’s death, it changed the password and closed the page.  Thus began a long legal battle by Karen Williams to regain access and obtain years worth of her son’s life on Facebook.

Now, lawmakers in many states are considering legislation that would require social networks like Facebook to grant loved ones access to the accounts of family members who have died.  In Oklahoma, a recent 2010 law grants the administrator of an estate the power to act on behalf of a deceased individual and access social media accounts.  These laws beg larger questions for the individual estate plan.  Whereas in the past, people have always properly considered the disposition of tangible personal property in their Wills, shouldn’t they now also be being given consideration to their “on line” property- the treasure trove of photos, messages and postings that accompanied them through life?

My grandfather died in 1963- 6 years before I was born.  I only know him from family stories… but his letter gave me great insight into his character.  I smile at the notion of how much more my great grandchildren will know of me.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Whose engagement ring is it anyway?

February 9th, 2012 1 comment

With Valentine’s Day approaching, no doubt many men are considering a marriage proposal to their significant others.   But before “fools rush in”, consider this: Who gets the engagement ring if the wedding is called off?  Believe it or not, there is a law in New York State that contemplates such eventualities.   

Civil Rights Law § 80-b states that “nothing in this article [contained] shall be construed to bar a right of action for the recovery of chattel . . . or the value thereof . . . when the sole consideration for the transfer of the chattel . . . was a contemplated marriage which has not occurred . . .”  Section 80-b is intended “to return the parties to the position they were in prior to becoming engaged, without rewarding or punishing either party for the fact that the marriage failed to materialize.”  Gaden v. Gaden 29 N.Y. 2d 80, 88.

However, consider where the proposer is in the midst of a divorce that has not been finalized before the proposal.  Such was the unfortunate fate of the Romeo in Listoken v. Kreitman  2007 NY Slip  Op 34260.  Listoken sued his former fiance Kreitman for the return of the $76,000.00 engagement ring kept by Kreitman after their breakup.  The Court found that since Listoken was married at the time of the proposal, the enagement ring could not be recovered on the grounds that  “an agreement to marry under such circumstances is void as against public policy . . . and it is not saved or rendered valid by the fact that the married individual contemplated divorce and that the agreement was conditioned on procurement of the divorce.” Lowe v. Quinn 27 N.Y.2 d, 397, 400  (1971)

Public policy, however, does not proscribe a return of the ring in situations where unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the defendant recipient of the ring was still married. In Shoenfeld v Fontek 67 Misc 2d 481 (1971), the unmarried male plaintiff sought to recover property he gave to the married female defendant in contemplation of their marriage, which ultimately did not take place. The defendant argued that no recovery was permissible because she was already married, and an impediment to the marriage therefore existed. The Supreme Court determined that the rule precluding recovery in such cases “is not intended to bar an action for the return of property by an innocent party, not aware of the other’s disability to contract a marriage at the time of the “engagement'”.

Of course, the foregoing rules apply only to a ring given as an engagement ring.  If there were reasons other than a contemplated marriage why the gift was given, such as part of a birthday or holiday celebration, the ring may not be subject to return.  Where there is a genuine dispute as to the circumstances under which the ring was given, a trial may be necessary to determine the facts.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

CREDIT CARDS WELCOME, AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE MINIMUM. IF NOT, BUY MORE!

November 21st, 2011 Comments off

Despite the seemingly endless number of ATMs to be found in every neighborhood, sometimes it is just easier to pay for small items with a credit/debit card. This avoids he imposition of costly ATM fees or a pesky Canadian trio will try to steal your money.

More often than not, once you get to the register with your bottle of water or bagel and present your card, you will be met with a shake of the head and a point to a hand-written sign that says “$________ minimum for all credit/debit transactions.” Well, if the handwritten sign attached to the register says so, it must be true, right? The answer, unfortunately is, maybe.

Until 2010, most credit card networks prohibited merchants from setting minimums for credit card transactions. A coalition of retail and small business organizations asked Congress to change this. The request received little notice because it was just a few short lines of text that made up the nearly 900 page Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act .The law states that merchants can set a credit card minimum purchase of up to $10.00, as long as they treat all cards the same. It also allows the Federal Reserve to review and increase the minimum payment amount.

 When confronted with this, if the sign says $10.00 minimum and all you have is a bagel and you want to pay by card, you are going to have to load up on additional items to reach the minimum. If however the minimum is above the $10.00 limit, consumers can report violations by merchants by contacting their issuing banks using the numbers listed on the back of their credit cards or contact the card company directly.

¹  (Sidel, Robin. ATM Fees Heading Higher.  16 Mar. 2011.  The Wall Street Journal.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703566504576202792887598636.html.

²  (Peltz, Jennifer.  3 Men From Canada Charged with NYC ATM Scam.  16 Nov. 2011.  The Wall Street Journal  http://online.wsj.com/article/AP686ce864c7d34238a8a1f8dad077a1bb.html.

³ 111th Congress (2009 – 2010) H.R.4173.  Page 698. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4173enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr4173enr.pdf.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Port Authority has governmental immunity for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

September 22nd, 2011 Comments off

As reported in the New York Law Journal today, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has governmental immunity against liability for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by terrorists who parked an explosive-laden truck in its underground parking lot, a narrowly divided state Court of Appeals ruled this morning.

Six people were killed in the attack and hundreds were hurt. Many of those injured and the survivors of those killed argued in suits that the Port Authority ignored repeated warnings by security experts about the vulnerability of the parking garages to bombers.

Today’s ruling overturns a decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, which found the Port Authority 68 percent responsible for the attacks and the terrorists 32 percent responsible. The Port Authority has argued for years that it makes no sense to hold the agency twice as responsible for the damages for an attack willfully launched by terrorists.Now a 4-3 majority of the state’s highest court has accepted the agency’s position.  The governmental immunity doctrine is “intended to afford deference to the exercise of discretion by the officials of municipalities and governmental entities,” especially with regard to the allocation of limited police resources, Judge Theodore T. Jones Jr. wrote for the majority.  “Governmental entities cannot be expected to be absolute, infallible guarantors of public safety, but in order to encourage them to engage in the affirmative conduct of diligently investigating security vulnerabilities and implementing appropriate safeguards, they must be provided with the latitude to render those critical decisions without threat of legal repercussions,” Judge Jones wrote in Matter of World Trade Center Bombing Litigation v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 217.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Fore……. Liability on the Golf Course

September 13th, 2011 Comments off

The sport of golf is enjoying unprecedented popularity these days.   Long Island is home to literally hundreds of private and public golf courses,  many offering some of the finest golf courses in the Country.    New private and quasi-private golf clubs continue to be built, particularly in Suffolk County.  In addition, despite the sluggish economy, the number of corporate and charity golf outings seems to be growing exponentially.  The combination of these factors has led to an increasing menace which threatens public health……… the “hack” golfer.

So what happens if you are injured on (or off)  the golf course as a result of a stray ball or other condition?  Do you have any remedies?  Unfortunately, with slim exceptions, the answer is usually, “No”.

With many sport related injuries, the courts often apply the doctrine of “Primary Assumption of Risk”  which holds that individuals who engage in a sport or recreational activity consent to assume the commonly appreciated risks that are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport.   Thus, the golfer should be keenly aware of the commonly appreciated risks associated with golf, of which the courts have found many, inluding the following:  1) being struck by an errant golf ball even when a fellow golfer fails to warn of his intent to strike  the ball. See Anad v. Kapoor, 15 N.Y. 3d 946;  2) slipping and falling while descending a staircase leading from cart path to tee box. See Mangan v. Engineer’s Country Club, 79 AD 3d 706; 3) slipping on wet grass. See Lombardo v. Cedar Brook Golf & Tennis Club, 39 AD 2d 818; and falling in mud.  See Carracino v. Town of Oyster Bay, 247 AD2d 501… all situations where the courts dismissed the injured parties claims.    

And for the golf “hackers” out there,  take solace (along with the author) in knowing that the New York State Court of Appeals has determined that generally, a golfer may not be held liable to the individuals located entirely outside the boundaries of the golf course, who happen to be hit by a stray ball.  See Rinaldo v. McGovern 78 NYS 2nd 729, where the court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff who was struck by an errat ball while driving his motor vehicle  on a public road abutting the golf course.  

So keep taking that driver out of the bag… and keep a good eye on your fellow golfer.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Categories: Personal Injury Tags: , ,

Son in law’s dog knocks mother in law down stairs

January 31st, 2011 1 comment

In New York, a dog owner can be held liable for a dog bite under a theory of strict liability if the owner was, or should have been, aware of the dog’s vicious propensities.   But what if your dog simply has a propensity to playfully jump on people?  A Brooklyn Supreme Court judge recently granted summary judgement to a mother in law who was injured when her son in law’s dog jumped on her causing her to fall down a flight of stairs.  In Bannout v. McDaniels 9920/09, NYLJ 1202479668419, at *1 (Sup., KI, Decided January 4, 2011) the court conlcuded that the dog’s proclivity to jump on people was sufficient to establish strict liability against the dog’s owners.   “A known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of an overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for damages resulting from such an act” Anderson v. Carduner, 279 AD2d 369, 370 [2001], quoting Thirlwall v. Galanter, 66 Misc 2d 88, 90, quoting Prosser, Torts, at 515 [3d ed

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Categories: Personal Injury Tags: , ,