Category: John Dolgetta

On March 4, 2019, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc. (see https://bit.ly/2Kd38bo) found that a landlord can be held liable under the Federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) (see https://bit.ly/2WBzEdH) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) (see https://dhr.ny.gov/law) for failing to protect a tenant from harassment and discrimination by another tenant. While the Court’s holding may seem an obvious result, especially in light of the egregious behavior of the defendants, the issue decided in this case is a novel one and it is only the second time that a similar issue has been reviewed by the courts (see Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC (U.S. Dist. Ct. Northern Dist. Ill. (July 27, 2016) at https://bit.ly/2MEXocA). It is important for landlords and property managers to know that their exposure to liability under the FHA has been expanded. Real estate professionals should also be aware of the decision in Francis, as it could significantly impact their landlord and property management clients.
Continue reading “Proposed Changes to the DOS Advertising Regulations and NAR’s New Clear Cooperation Policy”

In a recent decision, Widlitz v. Douglas Elliman, LLC, (see https://bit.ly/2AZ2BTH), the plaintiff commenced an action against her real estate broker and attorney based on a variety of claims, such as breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation, because the newly constructed condominium unit she was in contract to purchase did not have views of New York City but rather views of the walls of neighboring buildings. Both the real estate broker and attorney moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The Supreme Court (New York County) upheld the motion to dismiss made by the attorney, however, the Court held that there was a sufficient basis for the lawsuit to move ahead against the plaintiff’s real estate broker.
Continue reading “I Told You That I Wanted A View of the City!”

In a recent decision, Sanjana v. King (see https://bit.ly/2kDGf5K), the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision (see https://bit.ly/2Mw924T) which held that a seller could retain the purchasers’ downpayment of $110,000 as liquidated damages where the purchasers failed to timely cancel the contract of sale in accordance with its terms when the purchasers obtained a conditional mortgage commitment and the lender refused to move forward with the loan.

The Relevant Mortgage Contingency Provisions in Sanjana

The parties entered into a contract for the sale of a condominium unit in New York City. The standard language in the contract provided as follows: “The obligations of Purchaser hereunder are conditioned upon issuance, on or before thirty (30) days from the date hereof (the “Commitment Date”) of a written commitment from an Institutional Lender pursuant to which such Institutional Lender agrees to make a loan other than a VA, FHA or other governmentally insured loan to Purchaser, at Purchaser’s sole cost and expense, of $800,000 or such lesser sum as Purchaser shall be willing to accept.” This is customary language and is similar to language included in many of the various forms of contract (see below).

Continue reading “My Lender Would Not Proceed with My Loan and I Just Lost My Downpayment!”

Since the passage of the Statewide Housing Security and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (the “2019 Act” or “Act”) [see https://bit.ly/2xA6lth] on June 14, 2019, the Hudson Gateway Association of Realtors, Inc. (“HGAR”) has been receiving many calls from its members and licensees regarding the Act. Among some of the questions asked are: (1) whether additional pet deposits can be collected by a landlord; (2) whether the new rental laws apply only to rent regulated apartments or all apartments; (3) whether the 2019 Act applies only to New York City tenants or tenants statewide; whether the Act applies to one-to-four family residential; (4) whether a landlord is able to request the first and last month’s rent; and (5) whether a landlord is allowed to require a tenant to reimburse for the rental fee. The 2019 Act is causing widespread confusion amongst real estate professionals throughout the state and even many legal experts are having difficulty interpreting the changes. On July 15th several landlords filed a lawsuit claiming that the new legislation is unconstitutional. HGAR and the Bronx-Manhattan Association of Realtors on August 7th hosted a panel of real estate experts [see https://bit.ly/2yZ5brL] who discussed the widespread impacts that the 2019 Act will have on the rental market as well as the sale market for rental and investment properties. Overall, the consensus amongst real estate professionals is that these new laws have caused confusion and angst.
Continue reading “The New Rent Laws: Confusion and Anger”

On June 14, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed into law the controversial Statewide Housing Security and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (the “2019 Act” or “Act”) [see https://bit.ly/2xA6lth]. The Act went into effect immediately and it significantly modifies and expands the existing rent
regulations. The Act changes both the legal and business landscape in the New York real estate market in significant ways.

Rent Control v. Rent Stabilization

In New York, there are two rent regulation programs currently in effect: “Rent Control” and “Rent Stabilization.” These laws were enacted to protect tenants from excessive rent increases and to deal with housing shortages. At the same time, these regulations were intended to allow owners to realize a reasonable profit and allow for reasonable increases so that owners could recuperate certain operating expenses and improvement costs.
Continue reading “Major Changes to the New York Rent Regulation Laws: The Statewide Housing Security and Tenant Protection Act of 2019”

On March 4, 2019, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc. (see https://bit.ly/2Kd38bo) found that a landlord can be held liable under the Federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) (see https://bit.ly/2WBzEdH) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) (see https://dhr.ny.gov/law) for failing to protect a tenant from harassment and discrimination by another tenant. While the Court’s holding may seem an obvious result, especially in light of the egregious behavior of the defendants, the issue decided in this case is a novel one and it is only the second time that a similar issue has been reviewed by the courts (see Wetzel v. Glen St. Andrew Living Community, LLC (U.S. Dist. Ct. Northern Dist. Ill. (July 27, 2016) at https://bit.ly/2MEXocA). It is important for landlords and property managers to know that their exposure to liability under the FHA has been expanded. Real estate professionals should also be aware of the decision in Francis, as it could significantly impact their landlord and property management clients.
Continue reading “Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc.: The Landlord’s Obligation to Protect Other Tenants from Harassment”

On April 10, 2019, the Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department issued a decision in Comora v. Franklin (see https://bit.ly/2H90yk4) holding that the defendants in the case, the seller and seller’s agent, had no duty to disclose to the buyer, based on the doctrine of “Caveat Emptor” (i.e., “Buyer Beware”), the existence of humidity and mold in an indoor pool area of the home they purchased. This may seem like a simple and straightforward decision reiterating that the doctrine of “Buyer Beware” is still the law in New York; however, it is important to note that the rationale the Appellate Court applied in Comora in overturning the decision of the lower court was primarily based on the existence of specific disclaimers contained in the contract of sale.
Continue reading “Comora v. Franklin: The Doctrine of “Buyer Beware” Is Still Alive – But One Must Still Beware”

The filing of the Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) on March 28, 2019 (see https://bit.ly/2OxXTCC) against Facebook, Inc. by the Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) comes at a time of the year when the real estate industry’s focus is on Fair Housing, particularly because it commemorates the enactment of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) (see https://bit.ly/2OXTbOK) in April, 1968 and the assassination of Martin Luther, King Jr. which occurred on April 4th, the same day the Senate voted on the legislation. According to HUD it is “…a time when we celebrate the Fair Housing Act and recommit ourselves to ensuring every American has access to housing that is free from discrimination.”
Continue reading “HUD v. Facebook: Battling Discrimination on the Internet”

It is the middle of the tax season and it important to highlight some of the major provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) (see http://bit.ly/2jZX47p) passed in December, 2017, affecting the real estate industry. The TCJA includes many new provisions, and retained some previous provisions, with both positive and negative effects on the real estate industry and real estate professionals in particular. As indicated in a previous article (see https://bit.ly/2G6txCj), there will continue to be a debate as to what effect the Tax Cuts Act will have on the general real estate market and the economy overall.
Continue reading “Revisiting Key Aspects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and Important 2019 Guidance from the IRS that Affect The Real Estate Industry”

On January 15, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (see https://bit.ly/2SDzfF7), which sheds some additional light on the requirements “places of public accommodation” (which include real estate brokerage firms, Realtor associations, and other businesses) are subject to under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (see https://bit.ly/2dXuamI) with respect to the websites they operate, but still does not provide the much needed and long awaited guidance.
Continue reading “Still No Clarity: The ADA Revisited in Light of the Ninth Circuit’s Decision in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC”