Source: https://jmpattorney.blogspot.com/2013/03/
Timestamp: 2019-08-21 09:21:44
Document Index: 297002354

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 21', '§ 15', '§ 21', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 10']

A Lawyer's Blog - Jon Michael Probstein, Esq.: March 2013
I was recently advised that the automatic orders Court rule was amended, effective January 30, 2013:
http://docs.dos.ny.gov/info/register/2013/jan30/pdf/court.pdf
Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme and County Courts
Pursuant to the authority vested in me, and upon consultation with
and approval by the Administrative Board of the Courts, I hereby
amend, effective immediately, section 202.16a of the Uniform Civil
Rules for the Supreme and County Courts, relating to automatic orders
in matrimonial actions, to read as follows:
Section 202.16a Matrimonial Actions; Automatic Orders
1. (a) Applicability. This section shall be applicable to all matrimonial
actions and proceedings in the Supreme Court authorized by section
236, Part B, Section (2) of the Domestic Relations Law.
(b) Service. The plaintiff in a matrimonial action shall cause to be
served upon the defendant, simultaneous with the service of the summons,
a copy of the automatic orders set forth in this section in a notice
that substantially conforms to the notice contained in Appendix F.
The notice shall state legibly on its face that automatic orders have
been entered against the parties named in the summons or in the summons
and complaint pursuant to this rule, and that failure to comply
with these orders may be deemed a contempt of court.
The automatic orders shall be binding upon the plaintiff immediately upon riling of
the summons, or summons and complaint, and upon the defendant immediately
upon service of the automatic orders with the summons.
These orders shall remain in full force and effect during the pendency
of the action unless terminated, modified or amended by further order
of the court or upon written agreement between the parties.
(c) Automatic Orders.
[The automatic orders served with the summons shall provide as
Upon service of the summons in every matrimonial action, it is
(1) [n]
Neither party shall sell, transfer, encumber, conceal, assign,
remove or in any way dispose of, without the consent of the
other party in writing, or by order of the court, any property (including,
but not limited to, real estate, personal property, cash accounts,
stocks, mutual funds, bank accounts, cars and boats) individually or
jointly held by the parties, except in the usual course of business, for
customary and usual household expenses or for reasonable attorney's
fees in connection with this action.
(2) [n]
Neither party shall transfer, encumber, assign, remove,
withdraw or in any way dispose of any tax deferred funds, stocks or
other assets held in any individual retirement accounts, 40IK accounts,
profit sharing plans, Keogh accounts, or any other pension or retirement
account, and the parties shall further refrain from applying for or
requesting the payment of retirement benefits or annuity payments of
any kind, without the consent of the other party in writing, or upon
further order of the court, except that any party who is already in pay
status may continue to receive such payments thereunder.
Neither party shall incur unreasonable debts hereafter,
including but not limited to further borrowing against any credit line
secured by the family residence, further encumbrancing any assets, or
unreasonably using credit cards or cash advances against credit cards,
except in the usual course of business or for customary or usual
household expenses, or for reasonable attorney's fees in connection
Neither party shall cause the other party or the children of
the marriage to be removed from any existing medical, hospital and
dental insurance coverage, and each party shall maintain the existing
medical, hospital and dental insurance coverage in full force and effect.
(5) [n]
Neither party shall change the beneficiaries of any existing
life insurance policies, and each party shall maintain the existing life
insurance, automobile insurance, homeowners and renters insurance
(6) These automatic orders shall remain in full force and effect
during the pendency of the action unless terminated, modified or
amended by further order of the court or upon written agreement between
(7) The failure to obey these automatic orders may be deemed a
Labels: Auromatic Orders, Matrimonial Law
NEW YORK STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - APPEAL BOARD DECISIONS
To those attorneys who practice in this area and represent Claimants only, I would like to hear your comments as to what you feel the "tone" of the Appeal Board has been in the past year - has it been "pro Claimant", "pro Employer" or "Fair & Even Across the Board"
"Q: What if I leave the area?
A: If you leave your normal labor market to travel to another area, you must call the Telephone Claims Center before you leave. They will tell you whether your benefit rights can be protected while you are away. You could lose your benefits if you fail to advise the TCC before you leave. Also, when you travel to a foreign country (except Canada), you should not use our web or phone systems to claim benefits while you are in the foreign country. If we learn that you received benefits while outside of the United States, we will issue an overpayment determination. That makes you liable to repay any benefits that you were not entitled to receive. You are in a foreign country when you go outside of the United States or a U.S. Territory (except Canada). Claimants may file for UI benefits From Canada using our web or phone systems. However, if you plan to leave your normal labor market to travel to Canada, you still must call the Telephone Claims Center before you go."
Recently, I have spoken to Claimants who, while in a foreign country, have had friends or family home certify for them while out of country. It would appear that the DOL is taking a hard position on this if and when discovered and may impose a penalty for false certification.
Labels: Repayment of Unemployment Insurance Benefits, Unemployment Insurance, Willful False Statements
Federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Explained
The federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was implemented to reduce the number of foreclosures, support the housing industry and keep mortgages more affordable for the millions of Americans living in homes that are worth less than what they owe. The idea behind this program is that if banks will work with their borrowers to lower the monthly payments and interest rates, homeownership will be more affordable in the short term as well as the long term and both the individual homeowner and the housing market as a whole will be more secure. This program works well for the banks too, because it allows them to give homeowners an opportunity to fortify their mortgages. Financial institutions do not want to foreclose on properties unless it’s absolutely necessary; it only leaves them with a flood of properties instead of repaid mortgages.
There are certain conditions that need to be met in order for you to qualify for HAMP. For starters, you must be trying to modify the loan on your primary residence. Banks are not interested in helping you avoid foreclosure on vacation homes or investment properties. Your primary residence should be the focus of your efforts to work with your lender through HAMP. Some exceptions can be made if you own a property that is currently being rented out, or you intend to rent out the residence. If that is the case, you may still qualify for a modification through HAMP.
You must have obtained your mortgage on or before January 1, 2009. Any loans made after that date are likely using reasonable terms and interest rates, so you can only use HAMP to modify a mortgage if it is an older loan. The amount you owe must not be higher than the limits currently imposed by the government. For a single family residence, you cannot owe more than $729,750 on your mortgage.
There must be some sort of financial hardship that is making it difficult for you to meet your mortgage obligations. This could be a health problem, unemployment, a divorce or some sudden and unexpected change to your financial standing. HAMP only applies to people who are currently delinquent in their mortgage payments, or in danger of becoming delinquent due to that financial hardship.
While financial hardships are expected, in order to qualify for HAMP, you must also be able to demonstrate you have sustainable income. The amount of money you earn must be able to cover the cost of your mortgage payments on a monthly basis. Finally, you must have an acceptable criminal record. You cannot take advantage of HAMP if you have been convicted of a felony theft, robbery, money laundering or larceny in the last 10 years.
Homeowners who meet the qualifications of HAMP should talk to their lenders and find out how to take advantage of this federal program. Modifying a mortgage to make it more affordable is a great way to keep your financial future secure and to ensure you will be able to retain your home as both a place to live and a reliable investment for the future.
This post was written for Jon Michael Probstein by Stephen K .Hachey. Stephen is an Orlando real estate lawyer specializing in loan modifications, short sales, foreclosure and much more. He is also the owner of his own practice, the Law Offices of Stephen Hachey, PA. This article is for general informational purposes only and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Please contact a licensed attorney in your state of residence. For more information on our services, please visit our website at www.floridarealestatelawyer.org/.
34 Misc.3d 43 (2011)
937 N.Y.S.2d 822
2011 NY Slip Op 21460
JOHN STEPHENS, Appellant.
2009-2507 NCR.
Decided December 27, 2011.
44*44 Hofstra Law Clinic, Hempstead (Jacob L. Stevens of counsel), for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola (Judith R. Sternberg and Cristin N. Connell of counsel), for respondent.
Defendant was charged with operating a home improvement business without a license in violation of Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.2 (as added by Local Law No. 6 [1970] of Nassau County). The ordinance provides that "[n]o person shall own, maintain, conduct, operate, engage in or transact a home improvement business after January first nineteen hundred seventy two, or hold himself out as being able to do so after such date unless he is licensed therefore pursuant to this title." Conspicuously absent from the ordinance is the requirement of a culpable mental state.
At the conclusion of the trial, defense counsel requested that the District Court instruct the jury that, in order to find defendant guilty of the charged offense, defendant must have acted either recklessly or negligently in failing to obtain a home improvement business license. Defense counsel also asked the District Court to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel (Penal Law § 15.20 [2]). The District Court declined to issue either charge, and the jury found defendant guilty.
45*45 Contrary to defendant's contention, the District Court properly declined to charge the jury that the alleged offense requires proof of a culpable mental state. New York precedents have formulated the equivalent of a rational basis test to determine whether a criminal statute or ordinance which specifies only an actus reus imposes strict liability. This standard requires a court to discern whether there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the criminal statute or ordinance, along with the conduct it proscribes, and the "safety, health, morals or welfare" of the public (People v Munoz, 9 NY2d 51, 58 [1961]; see People v Campbell, 72 NY2d 602, 609 [1988, Bellacosa, J., dissenting]). A statute or ordinance will be found to impose strict liability when such a reasonable relationship exists.
Applying the aforementioned test to Local Law No. 6, we find that the District Court correctly declined to impute a culpable mental state to its language. With respect to the purpose of the provision, the preamble to Local Law No. 6 explicitly provides that "[i]t is the purpose of the Board of Supervisors in enacting this Local Law to safeguard and protect the homeowner against abuses on the part of home improvement contractors by regulating the home improvement, remodeling and repair business and by licensing of persons engaged in such business" (Nassau County Administrative Code § 21-11.0). Thus, the Board of Supervisors specifically intended that Local Law No. 6 protect the public from fraud, shoddy workmanship and other safety concerns attendant to unlicensed contractors.
Furthermore, in proscribing unlicensed contractors' engaging in home improvement work, Local Law No. 6 protects the public from the inherent harm in trusting their safety and property to nonlicensed individuals. As a result, Local Law No. 6 "specifies a strict liability offense not requiring any culpable mental state," and we choose to refrain from "rewrit[ing] the plain words of the statute by adding, through judicial gloss, a culpable mental state or new element not provided by the [Board of Supervisors]" (People v Nelson, 11 Misc 3d 126[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50201[U], *2 [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]).
The District Court also properly denied defendant's request to charge the jury with the affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel. Penal Law § 15.20 (2) states that
"[a] person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of 46*46 law, constitute an offense, unless such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of the law contained in (a) a statute or other enactment, or (b) an administrative order or grant of permission, or (c) a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or (d) an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant, agency or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility or privilege of administering, enforcing or interpreting such statute or law" (emphasis added).
The "official statement of . . . law," however, "must in fact authorize the conduct in question; a reasonable belief that the statement authorizes such conduct is insufficient" (Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 15.20, at 125-126 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Fraser, 96 NY2d 318, 326 [2001]). In this case, defendant failed to demonstrate that Village of Roslyn officials had authorized him to perform construction work on the complainant's home without the requisite home improvement business license. At most, defendant established that the Village had erred when it had issued him a construction permit based on inaccurate licensing information.
We note in passing that Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (1) (ii) (a) (12) (b) has no bearing on the disposition of this appeal because the Village of Roslyn does not regulate the licensing of home improvement businesses.
Labels: Criminal Law, Unlicensed Contractors
The issue of insurance checks being held in limbo continues.
See the following article: Cuomo says ten banks holding back some superstorm Sandy payouts
Labels: Insurance Law, New York Insurance Coverage Disputes, Superstorm Sandy
To be aware of in this housing market with the economy, foreclosures, etc:
Recently, I received an infomrative email from the firm of Thaler Gertler LLP entitled: "
Using Bankruptcy as a Tool for Saving Property from Foreclosure"
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=agzgyolab&v=001Uw9QefivccLAel1cSq0JHHOH3Hnfq-MLQrmkOWoZz_tgvxlFcIWvCEf7wrpesg2x_lM2ydMsOcRYD6WIp2CZObsWK4n82SuI5ylVzXKJmh0%3D
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. Beth EISENBERG, Bank of America, N.A., John Does and Jane Does, said names being fictitious, Defendants. Index No. 382/11 (Jan 14, 2013, Sup. Ct., Nassau County, F. Dana Winslow, J.)
I am advised that this is being appealed but the court held in this foreclosure matter that sanctions would be imposed for bank’s refusal to cosign FEMA checks for bad faith under Rule 130 of Uniform Court Rules..
Labels: Mortgage Foreclosure, SANCTIONS, Superstorm Sandy
There is a new grant program - Recreate NY Smart Home assistance - that homeowners can pre-register for.
There is also a program - Small Business Storm Recovery Program - that business owners can register for.
http://nysandyhelp.ny.gov/
On February 28, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that five of New York’s largest banks and mortgage servicers will have representatives available to offer one-on-one help to homeowners seeking the release of Superstorm Sandy insurance settlement funds at the Department of Financial Services’ Disaster Assistance Centers from Monday, March 4 through Saturday, March 9.
A link to the press announcement can be found here:
http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/02282013DFS-Program
Labels: FEMA, Mortgage, New York Insurance Coverage Disputes, Superstorm Sandy