albany county bar association · 2018-12-10 · help those in need. as stated by martin luther...

We have reached the end of the year and prepare for the holiday season. At my house we celebrate Christmas which happens to be my favorite holiday. As the youngest of four children, I have great memories of waking up extremely early on Christmas morning to see what presents were left under the tree. This tradition be-came even more exciting when I had my own child.

He turned 10 this year and despite the fact that my husband told him this summer that “it’s us” to my secret delight, he’s still pretending to believe in Santa. So, I look forward to another magical season filled with decorating, buying way too many gifts and listening to carols. By the time this is published, I will also have celebrat-ed Hanukkah with my sister and her family at our holiday party at our home in Albany. I love how this time of year people come together to celebrate and we put all our differences aside.

This coming year, ACBA and the Alba-

ny District Attorney’s office will be coming together to offer ACBA members a new volunteer opportunity. As mentioned in the September newsletter interview with D.A. Soares, “Clean Slate” is a new pro-gram for members of the public to join in the mission of seeking alternatives to incarceration in addressing felony level crimes committed by young adults. This program needs volunteers to assist with the filing of sealing statute applications that offer relief for community members who qualify. The rules regarding sealing are governed by CPL 160.59 which sets forth that the Chief Administrator of the courts is charged with prescribing a form application which may be used by a de-fendant to apply for a sealing. This option is available to “a defendant who has been convicted of up to two eligible offenses but not more than one felony offense.” Such individuals may apply to the court in which he or she was convicted of the most serious offense to have such convic-tion or convictions sealed. Any eligible offense may be sealed only after at least ten years have passed since the impo-sition of the sentence on the defendant’s latest conviction or, if the defendant was sentenced to a period of incarceration, in-cluding a period of incarceration imposed in conjunction with a sentence of proba-tion, the defendant’s latest release from incarceration. In calculating the ten-year period, any period of time the defendant spent incarcerated after the conviction for which the application for sealing is sought, is excluded and the ten-year period shall be extended by a period or periods equal to the time served under such incarcera-tion (See CPL 160.59 [7] [h]).

Clearly, there are people in our commu-nity who would benefit from the help of an attorney when completing the application for sealing. Furthermore, if the Court saw fit to approve the sealing, an immeasur-

able outcome for that person’s life would follow. Doors would open for better em-ployment, state certification and more. Some ACBA members may be nervous about offering assistance if they lack ex-perience in criminal law. However, we are putting together an information packet that will assist our volunteers. I’m truly ex-cited about this partnership with the D.A.’s office as it gives us another opportunity to help those in need.

As stated by Martin Luther King, “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, What are you doing for others?” I’m so proud when I see ACBA members help-ing individuals in Family Court at the Help Center and through other volunteer op-portunities. This program expands those volunteer opportunities and I know there are ACBA members who will help. To that end, we will be hosting an informational meet and greet regarding CPL 160.59 on

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

NEWSLETTER

ALBANY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

WHAT’S INSIDE:

December 2018 | A Publication of the Albany County Bar Association

Continued on page 6

HON. CHRISTINA L. RYBAACBA President 2018

[email protected]

A Conversation with Justice Michael Lynch. ......................................... 2Immigration Law Update .............. 3Matrimonial Law Update ............... 4Lawyer Referral Service Corner ...... 7Raising the Bar ......................... .... 8Surrogate’s Court Proceedings and Updates................................. 10Labor and Employment Practice ... 12Advice For Eating Well - Especially During The Holiday Season! .......... 13News And Views From One General Counsel ..................... 14Health Law Update ....................... 15Animal Law Update ....................... 16Bench & Bar .................................. 21Classified .... ................................. 25Calendar of Events ......................... 26

2 | Albany County Bar Association Newsletter | December 2018

President Hon. Christina L. Ryba

President – Elect Daniel J. Hurteau

Vice President Michael P. McDermott

Treasurer Elizabeth J. Grogan

Secretary Mathew P. Barry

Immediate Past President James E. Hacker

Board of Directors

Hon. Ryan T. Donovan

William T. Little, Jr.

Lisa R. Harris

Kathleen A. Barclay

Dean Alicia Ouellette ex officio

Vincent E. Polsinelli

Lorraine R. Silverman

Eileen M. Stiglmeier

Caitlin J. Monjeau

Benjamin Clark

Chair of Admissions

Amanda Kuryluk

Albany County Bar Association 2018 OFFICERS

Continued on page 9

A Conversation with Justice Michael LynchI had the pleasure of interviewing Jus-

tice Michael Lynch, of the Third Depart-ment, on his experiences in the legal profession. We had a wide-ranging, delightfully candid conversation as he reflected on not only his own practice, but the different paths he explored and the challenges of the legal profession in general.

The start of Justice Lynch’s career was clerking with the District Attorney’s office during law school. After briefly working there following law school, he began a clerkship with Hon. Leonard Weiss that would leave a lasting impact on him today. Justice Lynch remarked with admiration the ongoing mentorship that Judge Weiss provided, as well as Judge Weiss’ incredible work ethic, re-markable passion for getting the just, correct decision, and considering the impact on others. As we had our con-versation, it was clear to me that these traits and approaches to the law by Judge Weiss set the standard for how Justice Lynch has strived to approach his career, both on and off the bench.

Justice Lynch shared how he left his clerkship with Judge Weiss to join his brother in private practice. During his time there, Justice Lynch became the County Attorney and was able to ob-serve how everything starts at the local level. During his time in private practice and as County Attorney, Justice Lynch had a wide-variety of cases, having to learn and dive into each aspect of those laws. One of the cases that stood out to him was the case of Arbor Hill Con-cerned Citizens v. Albany County, which dealt with whether Albany County’s re-districting plan was a violation of the Voting Rights Act. When asked what the most pressing challenge for him was in private practice, Justice Lynch remarked that, in part, the challenge is managing the business side of a law

practice. He also reminded me that while it is important to work hard, that there are times when you have to find time to “leave work at work” and strike a proper balance.

Justice Lynch ultimately ran to be a Supreme Court Judge in 2005, where-in he was successfully elected. When asked what his approach was as a tri-al judge, Justice Lynch remarked that while every judge is different in their approach, he would look to the attor-neys for knowledge of the case and would facilitate as appropriate. He also felt that every person had the option to take a case to trial if they wanted to do so. Similar to his time in practice, he enjoyed the variety of cases that came before him.

After several years on the trial bench, Justice Lynch was appointed to the Third Department in 2014. He shared that his favorite aspect of being an ap-pellate judge is that every case is a new challenge. While the goal is always to “get it right”, and each judge inde-pendently decides what they think is the right answer, he believes it is also im-portant to listen carefully and thoughtful-ly when challenged by a colleague and told that they are wrong. When asked about the role of dissenting in an opin-ion, he expressed his belief that a judge should dissent if they strongly believe in their position. Justice Lynch was also candid when questioned about the vari-ety of areas that judges are expected to decide upon. He shared that for those areas he is less familiar with, he works harder to ensure he understands the is-sues and the law. He spoke of the grati-fying experience of being on the appel-late division, as well as the collegiality and support of his colleagues and staff. One case that stood out to him that ex-emplified the hard work and mutual de-sire to get it right was the case of Matter of Guardianship of Jose YY, 158 A.D.3d 200 (3D Dept. Jan. 18, 2018), which addressed whether a child could “pe-tition the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for spe-cial immigrant juvenile status (SIJS),

Danielle Holley, Esq.O’Connell & Aronowitz, [email protected]

Albany County Bar Association Newsletter | December 2018 | 3

IMMIGRATION LAW UPDATE

Politics, Anti-Semitism and the Caravan

1 See http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/biden-hopes-package-bomb-scares-will-inspire-political-cool-down-n924676

2 See http://time.com/5435748/border-pa-trol-wont-shoot-caravan-kirstjen-nielsen/

3 See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/us/mus-lims-raise-money-pittsburgh-synagogue.html

4 DACA stands for Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

5 The President claimed that only 3 percent of asylum seekers show up for immigration court proceedings when the Department of Homeland Security’s own num-bers show that the vast majority appear for their sched-uled hearing.

David W. Meyers, Esq.Meyers and Meyers, [email protected], in April 2018, President Trump im-

plemented a “zero tolerance policy”, which as anyone even barely paying attention to the news knows resulted in the widespread and inhumane separation of parents and children arriving together at the United States southern border. The President’s policy mandates the prosecution for illegal entry of everyone apprehended between ports of entry, including those who are law-fully allowed to seek political asylum in the United States (no matter where they enter).

During the President’s first two years, his administration has also implemented policies that are undermining the inde-pendence of our immigration judges and weakening due process in the immigration court system. The changes adopted by the Department of Justice over the last year in-clude steps to impose numerical quotas on immigration judges and attempts to curtail procedural safeguards. Immigration courts play an important role in affording noncit-izens an opportunity to present claims for relief and stay in the United States. The ad-ministration’s changes threaten the integrity of these courts.

There have been other issues too, in-cluding among many others, the Trump administration’s efforts to rescind DACA re-lief for Dreamers,4 congressional efforts to curb legal immigration, and of course, who can forget the Travel Ban?

More recently, along with the ridiculous rhetoric in connection with the caravan, are the President’s claims that he will end birthright citizenship by means of Executive Order, vows to hold undocumented immi-grants in detention until they could be de-ported, and to block asylum seekers from claiming asylum if they are caught crossing the border outside of legal ports of entry. Oh, and lest I forget, the President has a plan to send thousand upon thousands of our military personnel to save the country from the “bad hombres” and “Middle East-erners” in the caravan preparing to attack our southern border.

Please, make him stop.

By the time this piece is published, the midterm elections will have come and gone. I don’t need to tell the readers of this newsletter how I hope it ends up.

I was struck recently by two quotes I saw within moments of each other about the “caravan” of immigrants trekking across Central America that are, according to President Trump, preparing to invade our southern border. On the one hand, there’s former Vice President Biden saying “[t]he press is not the enemy of the people. Im-migrants are not animals. My hope and prayer is that all of our leaders will work to lower the temperature in our public di-alogue, and I have faith that they will do that.”1 In contrast, Department of Home-land Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen recent stated that there is no “intention right now to shoot at people” from the Central American migrant caravan if they attempt to cross the United States border.2 I would suggest that Secretary Nielsen’s statement is not quite “lower[ing] the temperature in our public dialogue” that Vice President Biden was suggesting.

Days after I read the above quotes, and in stark contrast to the above quotes, I read a comment by Tarek El-Messidi, a Chica-go-based activist who helped coordinate a fundraising effort by two Muslim organi-zations that raised about $200,000.00 to help victims and their families following the shooting massacre at the Tree of Life Syna-gogue in Pittsburgh. “Putting our religious differences or even your political differenc-es aside, the core of all of us is that we have a shared humanity. ... We really wanted to reach out as human beings to help.”3

The politicization of our broken immigra-tion system (and yes, it’s very broken and has been for way too long) is brutal to watch. Our political climate is toxic right now and we need more thoughtful approaches to some of the terribleness that we’re seeing like Mr. El-Messidi’s response to the mas-sacre that took place in Pittsburgh.

The immigrants stuck in our broken immi-gration system, whether they are here law-fully or not, are paying a very big price. For

I don’t know who’s in the caravan, but the data (i.e., the facts and not the fake news) does not support any of the Pres-ident’s statements that these individuals are “bad hombres” or even “Middle East-erners”. More than likely, these individuals are leaving their home countries in search of a better life (i.e., seeking refuge from political violence in Honduras where the caravan originated), just like our ancestors did when they left Europe and arrived on Ellis Island. We welcomed them then. We should do so now.

Recently, in a rambling and pretty much unintelligible speech from the White House, which was as always filled with lies and falsehoods,5 the President once again politicized the immigration debate, again choosing politics instead of offering real solutions, when he announced plans to rewrite U.S. asylum law and procedures and to construct tent cities where families and asylum seekers could be detained for years.

Not surprisingly, as with any proposal that the President has offered mere days for the midterms, details of the plan are conspicuously absent, but instead will be forthcoming after the election. Of course they will. Just a little more red meat for his Republican base. Please, make him stop.


MATRIMONIAL LAW UPDATE

Bruce J. WagnerMcNamee Lochner P.C. [email protected]

Child Support - Modification – 2010 Amendments – Denial Vacated

In Fasano v. Fasano, 164 AD3d 1421 (2d Dept. Sept. 26, 2018), the mother appealed from a June 2017 Supreme Court judgment, which denied her mo-tion, brought in her December 2013 di-vorce action, to modify an October 2012 stipulation, made in a prior discontinued action, and which set the father’s child support obligation for two children at $1,500 per month. The October 2012 stipulation varied from the CSSA, which would have required $1,994 per month on the first $130,000 of combined paren-tal income (CPI) and $2,576 per month on the entire CPI. The stated reason for deviation was to allow the father to re-tain the marital residence as a place for the children. The wife’s June 2014 mo-tion for upward modification was based upon the father’s sale of the marital residence and his move to a different school district, as well as significant un-insured health expenses for one child, who had been hospitalized. On appeal, the Second Department reversed, on the law and the facts, holding that Su-preme Court should have granted the motion for upward modification, based upon “a substantial change in circum-stances” as defined by DRL 236(B)(9)(b)(2)(i), and remitted for a new determi-nation and calculation under the CSSA.

Custody – Visitation Transporta-tion; Counsel Fees – After Trial, Re-duced; Equitable Distribution – Debt, Pension (No Survivorship); Mainte-nance – Durational, Reduced

In Button v. Button, 2018 Westlaw 5292748 (3d Dept. Oct. 25, 2018), the husband appealed from a February 2017 Supreme Court judgment, which determined custodial and visitation is-sues, directed child support of $525 bi-weekly, counsel fees of $7,500 to the wife, equitable distribution of debt and the husband’s NYS pension, and main-tenance of $550 bi-weekly. The parties were married in October 2006 and have 3 children, born in 2012, 2013 and 2015. The parties were in their mid-30s at the time of trial and both in good health. The wife moved with the children from the marital residence in April 2015 and

commenced this action in June 2015. Supreme Court continued Family Court temporary orders of custody and child support during the pendency of the divorce action. The Appellate Division rejected the husband’s argument that a reduction of his visitation was error, but agreed that Supreme Court erred by re-quiring that he provide all transportation and by failing to provide specific times for holiday visits. The Third Department noted “that it was unnecessary for Su-preme Court to consider whether a change in circumstances had occurred because the temporary custody order was issued without the benefit of a full plenary hearing (citations omitted) and, further, did not address holiday and va-cation schedules.” The Court noted that the wife and children live with the wife’s parents — a 45-minute drive from the marital residence where the husband continues to reside and that she “did not have a vehicle and arranged for her transportation needs entirely by bor-rowing vehicles from her parents and a sibling.” As of the time of trial, the wife was to graduate from nursing school in May 2018 and begin full-time employ-ment as a registered nurse. The Appel-late Division did not disturb the sched-ule, given that the husband received an additional 4 weeks in the summer and also received a holiday schedule, but found: “In light of the 1½-hour round trip between the parties’ residences, the requirement that the husband provide all transportation unduly impairs his mid-week dinner visit; thus, we modify the judgment to provide that the parties shall equally share transportation for the mid-week dinner visits. We also mod-ify the holiday and vacation schedules to include exchange times, as follows: Christmas Eve shall begin at 6:00 p.m. on December 23 and end at 8:00 p.m. on December 24; Christmas Day shall begin at 8:00 p.m. on December 24 and end on December 26 at 8:00 a.m., when the Christmas vacation begins; all oth-er holidays shall begin at 6:00 p.m. the day preceding the holiday and end at 8:00 a.m. the day after the holiday; and the winter and spring school vacations shall begin at the end of the last school day prior to the vacation period and

shall end at 6:00 p.m. on the last day of the vacation period.” With regard to equitable distribution, the Appellate Di-vision noted that the former marital resi-dence had stipulated equity of $36,600, and the husband has a defined benefit pension plan with New York State. There was additional marital debt, which Su-preme Court ordered be assumed $40,106 by the husband and $3,430 by the wife. The wife wanted the residence to be sold, but Supreme Court awarded the same, with its debt, to the husband. The Third Department stated: “we can-not say that Supreme Court’s distribu-tion of the marital home and the parties’ debt is unjust or inequitable.” Supreme Court “appeared to equally divide the marital portion of the husband’s New York retirement according to the Ma-jauskas formula.” The husband argued that the court erred in ordering that he provide the wife with “the minimum sur-vivor benefit” for his pension plan. The Appellate Division found: “We take judi-cial notice of the applicable rules of the New York State and Local Retirement System. A participant may designate a former spouse to receive a portion of the preretirement ordinary death bene-fit and may name others to receive the remainder of that benefit. However, only one beneficiary, or alternate payee, may be named for retirement benefits. We agree with the husband that it would be inequitable to require that he name the wife as a beneficiary of his retirement benefits and thereby preclude him from sharing those benefits with any other person, such as a subsequent spouse. In that regard, we note that the marital portion of the pension is small, the par-ties are relatively young and the wife has the prospect of gaining employ-ment that should enable her to provide for retirement. Therefore, we modify the judgment by specifically awarding


the wife one half of the marital portion of the husband’s pension according to the Majauskas formula, including one half of the marital portion of the ordinary preretirement death benefit, but exclud-ing any requirement that the husband elect any option that would continue postretirement benefits to the wife fol-lowing his death.” The Third Depart-ment agreed with the husband that the maintenance award was excessive and held: “Although Supreme Court proper-ly awarded maintenance to the wife — who had been the primary caretaker of the children since the birth of the old-est child — while she obtained training as a registered nurse that would allow her to obtain employment and become self-sufficient, the maintenance award must be reassessed in light of its fail-ure to consider the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay.” The Court not-ed that “neither party could continue to enjoy the predivorce standard of living, which was sustained only by incurring substantial debt, and the parties’ nega-tive net worth established that they were in significant financial distress at the time of trial. The obligations imposed on the husband by the judgment total ap-proximately $48,806 annually. Payment of those obligations from his gross earn-ings of $73,083 would leave him with very little income to cover his own living expenses. At the time of trial, the wife’s own living expenses were modest. She incurred no housing expenses because she and the children were residing with her parents, and she had no vehicle of her own. Thus, her direct expenses were limited to gas, food and clothing. Accordingly, we reduce the amount of the maintenance award to $200 biweek-ly, retroactive to the date of commence-ment of the action and continuing until July 1, 2018.” The Court recalculated the child support award, given the reduced maintenance, and found that the pre-sumptively correct amount of the hus-band’s basic child support obligation for three children is $694.81 biweekly. With

respect to counsel fees, the Appellate Division agreed that “Supreme Court abused its discretion by awarding the wife $7,500 in counsel fees.” The Court concluded: “As aptly noted by Supreme Court, the marital debt exceeded the net value of the parties’ assets; indeed, upon equitable distribution, each has a negative net worth. However, inasmuch as the husband was employed and the wife was unemployed while she com-pleted her nursing education, Supreme Court properly found that the wife was the less monied spouse. Although the husband’s income is greater than the wife’s, his earnings are modest and are largely devoted to payment of mainte-nance, child support and marital debt. The fact of the matter is that neither party has sufficient assets or income for payment of counsel fees. Although an award of counsel fees to the wife was appropriate, upon consideration of the parties’ financial circumstances, we re-duce the award to $3,750.”

Custody - Relocation – Radius Clause Not Determinative

In Matter of Jaimes v. Gyerko, 2018 Westlaw 5274177 (2d Dept. Oct. 24, 2018), the father appealed from a June 2017 Family Court order which, without a hearing, granted the mother’s motion to dismiss his petition to modify a March 2014 stipulated order, to enjoin her from relocation with the parties’ children from Mamaroneck to Woodbridge, CT, and to appoint an attorney for the children. The Second Department reversed, on the law, denied the mother’s motion, and re-mitted to Family Court for a hearing on the father’s petition, holding that while the proposed relocation was within the 55 mile radius permitted by the March 2014 order, the father argued that the relocation would not be in the children’s best interests. Therefore, the Appellate Division held that Family Court should not have granted a summary dismissal

of the father’s petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), because the parties’ agree-ment was “not dispositive, but rather, is a factor to be considered along with all of the other factors a hearing court should consider when determining whether the proposed relocation is in the best inter-ests of the children.”

Family Offense - Violation – Dismissed

In Matter of Scobie v. Zimmerman, 2018 Westlaw 5288914 (3d Dept. Oct. 25, 2018), petitioner appealed from a September 2017 Family Court order which, sua sponte at the initial appear-ance, dismissed her petition seeking to find respondent in willful violation of a “refrain from” order of protection. The Third Department affirmed and found: “The petition contains what purports to be quotations from a conversation be-tween respondent and his attorney in the county courthouse while petitioner was in an adjoining room. Although pe-titioner asserts that respondent made a threat to her life and said that she would disappear, the quoted language does not directly refer to petitioner. Even if it did, there is no allegation that respon-dent directed his remarks toward peti-tioner or that he intended for her to over-hear him. Indeed, there is no allegation that respondent was aware that petition-er was nearby or listening to his private conversation with his attorney. The al-legations in the petition are facially in-sufficient to demonstrate any acts that would constitute menacing, harassment or any other willful violation of the order of protection.”

LEGISLATIVE ITEMThe legislation regarding court ap-

pointed special advocates, as detailed in the October 2018 Newsletter, was signed and effective October 1, 2018. A01050/S02059-A, Laws of 2018, Chap-ter 291.


January 10, 2019 at 8:00 AM at 112 State Street, Albany NY.

Until next year, be well. I hope you had a happy Hanukkah or have a Merry Christmas, Kwanzaa, Festivas, New Year or other holiday close to your heart!

This month I had the pleasure of inter-viewing Hon. Stacy Pettit, Albany County Surrogate’s Court Judge, for the public service highlight.

1) Please summarize your role as Al-bany County Surrogate’s Court Judge.

Surrogate’s Court has broad jurisdiction over uncontested and contested matters involving estates and trusts, adoptions of minors and adults, and guardianships of the person and property of minors and developmentally disabled persons. Sur-rogate’s Court was originally established to determine estates and cases involv-ing those who were considered unable to protect themselves, such as surviving spouses, minor children and those un-der disability. The court was also given the power to determine the testamentary intentions of a decedent. Because dece-dents and parties under a disability are unable to speak for themselves, the judge of the court was called a “surrogate,” charged with protecting the interests of the parties in addition to determining the outcome of cases. As a Surrogate’s Court judge, I deal with large litigated es-tate matters involving businesses, com-mercial property, accountings and tax issues, as well as small estates brought by pro se court users, and all the cases in between. Albany Surrogate’s Court is

responsible for disposing of more than 3800 proceedings filed every year. I find the facts of the cases and the applicable law to be interesting and complex.

2) What motivated you to leave pri-vate practice and work in public ser-vice?

I have had a fascinating time in my ca-reer. When I graduated from Albany Law School in 1984, I was fortunate to find a position with a large general practice firm in Albany. The senior partners had ac-cumulated many estate planning clients over their long careers, and the firm did not have a dedicated estate attorney. I was able to gain experience in many ar-eas of law at that firm, but the opportunity I appreciated most was my immersion into the administration of estates. I real-ized that in order to practice trust and es-tate law, an attorney must also be versed in real estate law, business law and tax law, and sometimes personal injury and wrongful death determinations. I found the cases I worked on to be extremely interesting. After that, I continued to con-centrate in trust and estate law and Surro-gate’s Court practice in the Albany area, eventually opening my own firm with an-other partner and staff. I also enjoyed the camaraderie and knowledge I gained through my memberships in the Trusts and Estates Section of NYSBA and in the Albany County Bar Association, and I be-gan speaking and writing on estate and trust issues early in my career.

Private practice was successful and rewarding for me. I enjoyed the one-on-one client counseling, and found each person had a different narrative which required individual tailoring to create an appropriate estate plan for that person. I also enjoyed helping families get through the difficult process of administering an estate, and I was gratified when I felt the process was accomplished efficiently and the parties were satisfied with the re-sults. Having my own firm also gave me the power to make my own schedule for work and family, which was important at the time because my husband and I had three young sons and we both worked full time. Often during that time, I saw clients and went to court in the daytime, spent the evening with my family, and then drafted documents at home at night.

While in private practice, I accept-

ed appointments from area Surrogate’s Courts as a guardian ad litem, guardian and guardian accounts examiner. When Albany Surrogate’s Court needed a part- time court attorney in 1999, I was able to join the court while still maintaining my private practice. In 2001, I left private practice and joined the court full-time as Chief Clerk of the Court. At first, I missed the personal satisfaction of deal-ing directly with clients, but soon, I found public service through Surrogate’s Court to be fulfilling. It was a challenge to co-ordinate a large staff, manage the court caseload, and reduce the time it took to provide good service to attorneys and court users. I enjoyed assisting counsel with Surrogate’s Court procedure, and I continued to speak and write for bar associations, the law school and other organizations to help increase the knowl-edge of those who practiced in the court.

From 2012 to 2014, I worked as an Appellate Court Attorney for the Appel-late Division, Third Department. That experience was invaluable in helping me to hone my skills in legal research and writing, and I think of that time as “judge school.” I found the work of the Appel-late Court attorneys and judges to be very engaging, and the work made me interested in becoming a judge. When the opportunity to run for Albany Coun-ty Surrogate arose in 2014, I knew I had to make the attempt, even though I had no campaigning experience and was not endorsed by a political party. My ap-proach to the campaign was to personal-ly tell voters that I understood Surrogate’s Court, the law, and had the sensitivity and temperament needed in this court.

In any event, here I am. Nearing the end of my fourth year in my judicial term, I can say that these years have been the happiest of my career so far. I have found that if you put the same heart and effort into a public service career, public service is no less demanding than pri-vate practice. There are always ways to improve service to court users, and the court’s staff and I are always trying to do our best to make the court experience a good one for practitioners and their cli-ents. I must add that I could not do this job without the court’s dedicated and tal-ented employees, and I am proud that we work as a team.

Continued from page 1

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (continued)


3) What are some of the biggest chal-lenges in Surrogates Court?

As practitioners know, the parties in-volved in contested Surrogate’s Court cases often have strong emotions which affect the progress of the cases. They feel sadness because of the loss of a loved one, but they may also harbor an-ger and resentment because they be-lieve they have not been treated fairly by the decedent, their siblings or other parties. In estate and trust cases, I of-ten hear parties state that “it is not about the money – it is about the principle.” In such cases, emotions influence parties more than practical considerations, and they may not understand that settlement would benefit them. I often ask attorneys to use their trusted relationship with a cli-ent to explain the client’s chance of suc-cess in a given case and why settlement is an appropriate solution. When I can facilitate a reasonable settlement among parties, I do so. When I must hold a trial and conclude a case with a written de-cision, I try to write the decision with the losing party in mind, clearly and respect-fully explaining the considerations and law that lead to the decision. I also find contested guardianship and adoption cases to be challenging, since there is generally no settlement option, and the

best interests of a child or disabled indi-vidual is at stake. Again, in such cases, I try to write my decisions with compassion for the parties.

4) How important is mentorship in developing the next generation of at-torneys?

I believe mentorship is very important. Albany Surrogate’s Court accepts legal interns from Albany Law School every semester, and we have had summer in-ternships every summer. Twice we have been privileged to mentor law school re-cipients of summer fellowships chosen by the Trusts and Estates Section of the New York State Bar Association and paid by a Bar Foundation grant. We will con-tinue to mentor law students interested in trusts and estates, and we look forward to seeing them appear in our court when they become attorneys.

I have always found that lawyers who practice in Surrogate’s Court are con-siderate and helpful to each other. I had many local practitioners who helped me when I was young and had a prac-tice question, and I have tried to do the same for other practitioners by offering legal education seminars and written ar-ticles applicable to practice in this court. I strongly recommend county and state

bar membership and section member-ship to young lawyers, so they may make connections to attorneys who will share their wisdom and experience. Bar mem-bership also provides access to good written materials like those found in the ACBA newsletter and the NYSBA Trusts & Estates newsletter.

5) What is the most valuable mem-bership benefit for you?

I am a strong supporter of the Albany County Bar. When I was younger, mem-bership helped me connect with other local attorneys and judges, helped me to find employees, and helped me to enjoy social events with my colleagues. Now, as a judge, I am restricted from social-izing with attorneys who appear before me unless it involves participation in a bar association event. I think it is very important for the bench and bar to par-ticipate in events together outside of a courtroom setting. Such events encour-age civility and collegiality among us all. Seeing each other at events where we can get to know each other as people re-minds us that we should continue to treat each other with respect in all aspects of our careers. Thank you, Judge Ryba, for this opportunity to share my experiences.

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE CORNER

Welcome to the Lawyer Referral Ser-vice (LRS) Corner! This column has been designed to showcase our incred-ible team of LRS panelists and share in-formation about the program.

Our first feature spotlight is Carolyn B. George, Esq. The Albany County Bar Association (ACBA) LRS is fortunate to

have Carolyn not only as an LRS pan-elist, but also as the Chair for the LRS Committee.

Name: Carolyn B. George, Esq.

Law Firm: Friedman, Hirschen & Mill-er LLP

Legal Specialties: Personal Injury, Insurance Coverage, Landlord Repre-sentation

Law School & Graduation Year: Syr-acuse University College of Law, Class of 1978

ACBA Member Since: 1981

LRS Panelist Since: 1988

Q: What sparked your interest in participating on the LRS Committee?

A: Broadening my client base. I’m al-ways interested in issues relating to in-surance coverage and felt it would be a pipeline to clients in need.

Q: What has been your experience

as an LRS Panelist?

A: Mixed. Sometimes just answering a simple question is all that’s needed. The range of calls is similar to what we see from our other paid advertisements. I believe I have been able to help people and obtain new clients that way.

Q: What are some activities and hobbies you like to do in your free time?

A: Running, vegetable & flower gar-dening, golf, and reading.

If you are currently a panelist and would like to be interviewed for an up-coming LRS Corner spotlight or would like more information on how to become an LRS panelist, please contact the Lawyer Referral Associate, Molly Farrell.

[email protected] (518) 445-7691 x110

mailto:[email protected]


Raising the Bar

The Adversary System— Can you tell me the way to get to…?Those old enough to have teenagers

about to apply for a driver’s license and take the road test, or young enough to recall details of their own effort to legally get behind the wheel, will all agree that before you turn the ignition key or push a button, you need to know three things:

How does the thing work?Where am I going?How do I get there?

The adversary system, inherited from feudal days, still is the vehicle for res-olution of disputes. In civil cases the objective is almost always money. In criminal cases, it’s about liberty. How can we, as criminal defense attorneys, contribute to making a system of social control achieve its intended objectives in a way that promotes fairness for all the participants?

For rookie drivers, GPS tells them where to go. Once upon a time, there were road maps. If you go to AAA or Google Maps, you’ll get a TripTik show-ing the way to get from point A to point B. Lawyers utilize a device called stare decisis which the Merriam-Webster dic-tionary defines as “a doctrine or policy of following rules and principles laid down in previous judicial decisions un-less they contravene the ordinary princi-ples of justice.”

In the beginning, someone had to fig-ure out what to do when someone stole someone else’s sheep, or rustled his cattle, or gored her ox. Once they had made up the rules (sometimes they’d write them down and sometimes every-body was expected to remember them).

Before anyone knew it, we had judges and lawyers and then since most law-yers frequented saloons and taverns, it’s not surprising that one night some-one shouted: “Gimme another drink or I’m climbing over the bar to get it.” Thus, bar associations came into being.

Next, law schools came into being. The one thing that no one ever thought about was if there were too many law schools, graduating too many lawyers-to-be, what would all these young pur-veyors of the law do?

Let’s take a moment to look at law schools. You would imagine that three years of being inundated with reading and tormented by a faculty who re-garded themselves as contemporary versions of Professor Kingsfield from watching reruns of “The Paper Chase” on the TCM channel, would be plenty of time to inculcate anyone on any subject, but actually, what they don’t teach at law school is a lot.

Not that many years ago, in many ju-risdictions, graduating from law school and passing the bar examination wasn’t enough to take on clients. There was a further rite of passage, an apprentice-ship. In those days, recent grads were cheap labor and, before they could hang up a shingle of their own, they had to serve in the employ of a preceptor—sometimes for a year, sometimes for six months. Having a mentor wasn’t neces-sarily a bad thing. If a budding barrister was lucky enough to study under Yoda, Mr. Chips, or a Shaolin monk, the future would be bright for the young attorney and the clients, but things don’t always

Michael A. Feit, Esq.Law Offices of Michael A. Feit, [email protected]

Rebekah B. Sokol, Esq.Albany County Public Defender’s [email protected]

turn out the way we hope or even ex-pect.

So, the first tip of “Raising the Bar” is to find a guru, and ask questions, espe-cially if you’re a novice. If you’ve been at the game for double digit years, find someone that you can help to come up with the answers, or who, in this day of ever-changing electronic devices and otherwise, might help you. Collabora-tion is always a good thing, and bounc-ing ideas on and off others before the drafting of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus or arguing before the Appellate Division can only be mutually beneficial.

You’d think law school and mentoring was enough, but someone came up with something called a CLE.

Perhaps, the biggest problem with CLEs is that other than forcing people to sign in and sign out from morning and afternoon sessions, there is absolutely no way to determine whether anyone was paying attention or got anything out of the presentation. Look around any CLE lecture hall and you’ll find at least half of the lawyers doing work on their phones, or worse, trolling Facebook. Profiteering by hucksters peddling CLEs is annoying. Is being forced to at-tend programs in person or on line ac-tually accomplishing very much? All of this, like bar association dues promotes the profession, but not professionalism.

Are you wondering “Where did we go wrong?” and giving thought to doing something to make things better? Law-yers missed the boat 50 years ago when there was a lot of talk about “special-


ization”. Whoops, let’s be careful. Rule 7.4(a) of the New York Code of Profes-sional Responsibility states that “an at-torney is prevented from using the terms ‘recognized,’ ‘certified,’ or ‘specialist.” Yeah, patent attorneys and admiralty lawyers get to hold themselves out that way, but nobody else—unless they go through a lot of hoops and over lots of hurdles that hardly anyone ever does.

If you have chest pains, you wouldn’t call up a dermatologist and be told that you can be seen in six months. The medical profession has tons of areas of specialization, and one of the most important reasons that they can get away with it is because they are board certified. They have to take tests every few years in order to remain licensed. Granted, science is always changing and while there is change in the law, it has developed very slowly. Most legal scholars look backwards, not forwards.

Doctors drive more expensive cars and live in much bigger houses than most criminal defense attorneys. To compensate for giving up their right to

call themselves specialists, lawyers ar-en’t ever tested once they make it past the bar exam. You can drop by any law office with a bankruptcy problem or just about anything and, even if you’re talking to an attorney who has never actually appeared in court or done any-thing but zoning cases, and who hasn’t heard the term “bankruptcy” since the bar exam, she can take the case. Who is that helping?

If a potential client is shopping for a top-notch advocate, will checking out the websites or TV ads for lawyers, or seeing whose commercial has the most special effects or whose bus display is larger, tell her what she need to know about their expertise and experience? How about lawyer rating organizations, either praising attorneys who paid for the distinction of “Best Criminal Defense Attorney within the 200 Block of State Street in Albany” or vilifying some poor schlub who had a disgruntled client post a negative review online? If a per-son is in need of open heart surgery he/she will make every inquiry to find the best doctor, but podiatrists and ortho-

which, in turn, would enable him to ob-tain lawful permanent residency in the United States.” Justice Lynch remarked on how this was new to their depart-ment and that they worked to expedite the case, because timing was of import. He also reflected on the two election cases recently argued on one day and decided the next day, Matter of Marzu-llo v DelConte and Matter of Limpert v. Brandt, where again considerations re-garding timing required a group effort to achieve a just result in a prompt manner.

Finally, I asked Justice Lynch to re-flect on the changes of the legal profes-

sion and what advice has stayed with him during his career. He commented on the seemingly increasing complexity of cases and how there are fewer and fewer civil trials, although attorneys seem to be making greater use of me-diation and arbitration. Justice Lynch stressed the need to engage in pro bono cases, being involved in the bar, being engaged in every case and the importance of senior members of the bar or in a firm working closely with and mentoring younger attorneys. He also applauded the members of our bar on their professionalism and courteous-ness. As for other advice, he shared his perspective from the bench that it is im-

portant for all attorneys to work on their writing skills, write clearly without rheto-ric, and to clearly and in a focused man-ner identify the issues and the facts. He also recommended participating in oral argument, and to treat it as a conversa-tion. Finally, we discussed how every case has its “Achilles heel” and oral ar-gument can be used to address that or answer questions that any judge may have. The final advice mirrored those traits he saw demonstrated by Judge Weiss of working hard, staying focused, and working to achieve the just result.

A CONVERSATION WITH JUSTICE MICHAEL LYNCH (continued)


pedists won’t be considered. Empirical data is the best indicator, but how can track records best be conveyed?

At the outset of this article, three questions were posed. Have any been answered?

We have a pretty good idea of how the thing works.

We have a pretty good sense of where we’d like to go.

We still haven’t figured out the best way to get where we want to go.

Beginning next month, we will exam-ine tactics and strategies for enhanc-ing the journey. Previously, we’ve dis-cussed the practice of law with a broad brush. Now we select the one with del-icate bristles. We start off with a funda-mental issue – is your client confused, confounding, complex, contrite, con-trary, and/or competent? Are all defen-dants created equal?


Hon. Stacy L. Pettit, Surrogate Deborah S. Kearns, Esq., Chief Clerk Alima M. Atoui, Esq., Law Clerk Albany County Surrogate’s Court

FEES IN SURROGATE’S COURT

Article 24 of the SCPA governs fil-ing fees in all Surrogate’s Court mat-ters, to the exclusion of other statutory provisions (see SCPA 2401). Unlike a Supreme Court case, in a Surrogate’s Court matter, there are separate fees for each proceeding (see SCPA 2402), and there are no filing fees for motions made in a pending proceeding (see SCPA 2401 [4]). A typical estate case could consist of several separate proceedings -- such as a probate, a will construction, a disposition of real property and an ac-counting -- each of which would have a separate filing fee.

Filing Fees to Be Paid in Advance

All filing fees payable with regard to a Surrogate’s Court matter must be paid at the time of the filing (see SCPA 2401 [2]). The proceeding is not deemed filed until the fee is paid, and the clerk of Surrogate’s Court may not extend credit to persons requesting services for which a fee is payable (see 7 Op. State Compt. 38, 1951).

Specific Fees for Certain Proceedings

Although many proceedings in Surro-gate’s Court require a filing fee based on the value of the estate or subject matter (see SCPA 2402 [7], which will be discussed below), SCPA 2402 (8) (a) provides that certain proceedings have fixed filing fees. In many cases, the proceedings that require fixed fees are proceedings brought after or at the same time as a proceeding based on the value of the estate.

Petitions to appoint or remove a fi-duciary which have fixed fees include the following: SCPA 1502 appointment of trustee or successor ($45); SCPA 1703 appointment of a guardian ($20); EPTL 7-6.18 (d) appointment of a suc-cessor UTMA custodian ($20); SCPA

SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUES

711 removal of a fiduciary other than a custodian or guardian ($75); SCPA 711 removal of a custodian or guardian ($30); SCPA 715 application of fiduciary to resign ($30); and SCPA 717 suspen-sion of fiduciary in war ($30). Miscel-laneous proceedings with fixed fees in-clude: SCPA 2102 proceedings against a fiduciary ($20); SCPA 2103 proceed-ings by a fiduciary to discover proper-ty ($75); SCPA 2107 proceedings for advice and direction ($75); SCPA 2108 proceeding to continue business ($45); and SCPA 2114 proceedings to review corporate trustee compensation ($10). Other fixed fee petitions include: SCPA 1401 compel production of a will ($20); SCPA 1420 construction of a will ($75); SCPA 1421 determine right of election ($75); SCPA 2003 open a safe deposit box ($20); SCPA 2205 compel fiduciary to account ($30); and SCPA 607 punish for contempt ($30).

Proceedings Based on Value

Probate proceedings, administration proceedings and accounting proceed-ings (other than those for a living trust) have filing fees based on the value of the assets (see SCPA 2402 [1], [2] and [3]). For probate and administration proceedings, the value on which the fee is based is the fair market value at date of death of the gross estate pass-ing under the will or by intestacy. The value is not reduced by debts (such as mortgages on real property), and does not include assets which pass to ben-eficiaries outside of the estate. For an ancillary estate, the value only includes the property in this state subject to an-cillary probate or administration. For an accounting proceeding, the value on which the filing fee is based is the gross value of assets accounted for, including principal and income (generally sched-ules A and A-1 of the account). Finally, unless there is a specific fee listed for a proceeding, SCPA 2402 (6) provides that the filing fee for all other proceed-ings is based “on the value of the sub-ject matter.”

The fee schedule for all proceedings

based on value is as follows: if less than $10,000 ($45); 10,000 but under 20,000 ($75); 20,000 but under 50,000 ($215); 50,000 but under 100,000 ($280); 100,000 but under 250,000 ($420); 250,000 but under 500,000 ($625); and 500,000 and over ($1,250). In the event the filing fee paid on a probate or ad-ministration estate was either incorrectly underestimated or overestimated, the difference will be due to be paid, or a request for a refund should be made for the difference. Usually, the additional payment or refund is computed at the time the inventory of the estate is filed and the exact assets of the estate are known. If an additional filing fee is due, it is paid with the inventory. If a refund is due, it is shown on the inventory and the court will issue a form to obtain a refund.

Proceedings for Living Trusts

One of the most common filing fee mistakes occurs when a proceeding is filed for a living (inter vivos) trust. The filing fee for a living trust proceeding is not based on the value of the matter. If a petition is commenced to appoint a trustee (usually a successor not named in the instrument), or an accounting is filed for a living trust (regardless of whether the grantor is then living or deceased), the filing fee is a flat fee of $210 (see 2402 [8] [b] and 2402 [3] [b]). This is because Surrogate’s Court and Supreme Court have concurrent juris-diction of proceedings regarding living trusts, and the fee for an index number in Supreme Court is $210.

Other Documents with a Filing Fee

Specific fixed filing fees for other pleadings and documents filed in the court are listed in SCPA 2402 (9) - (15). Some of the most commonly filed docu-ments listed in these paragraphs of the statute will be discussed here. Please see the statute for the complete list.

Objections to probate of a will pur-suant to SCPA 1410 require a filing fee of $150 (see SCPA 2402 [9] [ii]). A de-mand for a jury trial pursuant to SCPA

An Insider’s View

Continued on page 11


502 has an additional filing fee of $150 (see SCPA 2402 [9] [i]). A respondent demanding a jury trial must do so in his answer or objections, and a petitioner who desires a jury trial must, regardless of whether the objectant made such de-mand, serve and file his own demand for jury trial within six days after service of the objections (see SCPA 502 [2] [a]). Each party who demands a jury trial must pay the filing fee (see SCPA 502 [3]). Furthermore, if only one party requests a jury trial, that party may with-draw the request without consent of the other parties, and there will be no jury trial (see SCPA 502 [5] [b]).

Objections or answers in any pro-ceeding other than probate have a fil-ing fee of $75 each (see SCPA 2402 [9] [iv]). A note of issue in any proceeding, which must be filed prior to trial, has a filing fee of $45 (see SCPA 2402 [9] [iii]). If a bond is required to be filed with the court, there is a filing fee of $20 if the bond is less than $10,000, and $30 if the bond is over $10,000 (see SCPA 2402 [9] [vi]). Certificates of letters of a fiduciary each cost $6 (see SCPA 2402 [11]).

Filings Requiring No Fee

As previously mentioned, there are no fees for motions filed in Surrogate’s Court (see SCPA 2401 [4]), but practi-tioners should not make the mistake of filing a motion where a proceeding is re-quired. All proceedings in Surrogate’s Court must be commenced with a ver-ified petition and filing fee. A notice of motion with supporting documents, such as a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, is appropriate only within the context of a pending pro-ceeding. Also exempt from a filing fee are ex parte applications to the court, such as applications for advance pay-ment of fees or commissions pursuant to SCPA 2111 or SCPA 2311 (see SCPA 2401 [4]).

There are no filing fees in any matter relating to the estates or affairs of per-sons missing or deceased as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (see SCPA 2401 [6]). This is the case regardless of the proceeding type.

This Court recently handled a compro-mise proceeding for the estate of a 9/11 victim, and no fee was due.

There are also a number of filings set forth in SCPA 2402 (16) for which no fil-ing fee is due. They include: (a) objec-tions filed by a guardian ad litem; (b) the annual account of a guardian; (c) any certified copy of a paper required to be filed with the United States Veterans Ad-ministration; (d) a petition in a proceed-ing to increase, reduce or discharge a bond when no accounting is required; (e) a proceeding for the appointment of a fiduciary when the appointment is made solely for the purpose of collect-ing money due from the federal or state government for services of an infant or a decedent formerly or now in the United States military; (f) a filing by the state of New York or any agency thereof (such as the Attorney General Charities Bu-reau), or by a social services official when taking any proceeding with re-spect to the estate of a person who was a recipient of social services benefits; and (g) filing of a petition and request for certified copies of an order for a withdrawal of guardianship funds for the maintenance or other proper needs of an infant. It should also be noted that all fees for adoption peti-tions were eliminated in 1969 legislation, to conform Surrogate’s Court with Family Court’s concurrent ju-risdiction, which has no fees.

Estates and trusts which do not require a formal accounting may be closed infor-mally without a filing fee, pursuant to SCPA 2402 (4). To do so, one should use a sim-ple affidavit from the fiduciary to show the estate has been fully distributed, accompa-nied by receipts and releases from all inter-ested parties. It is im-

portant to note that SCPA 2402 (4) only exempts an informal closing from filing fees if it “does not contain any statement of account.” Therefore, it is important not to include a summary statement of accounting or detail that would be in-cluded in an accounting if the fiduciary wishes to avoid a fee. If an informal ac-counting is filed with accounting infor-mation in it, it will be accepted for filing by the court, but a filing fee will be due based on the gross value of assets in-cluding principal and income.

We always look forward to seeing you here in Albany Surrogate’s Court!

70 ATTORNEYS NATIONWIDE

• Former elected family court judges• Former federal and local prosecutors• Certified federal “learned counsel”• Former Presidential Appointees• Six offices across upstate New York• Offices in Washington, DC, Texas and California

ALBANY, NY | AUSTIN, TX | BINGHAMTON, NY | BUFFALO, NY HOUSTON, TX | NEW YORK, NY | ROCHESTER, NY

SAN DIEGO, CA | SYRACUSE, NY | WASHINGTON, D.C.

Co-counsel, referrals andemployment opportunities available

Call today for more details:518-218-7100

or email [email protected]



LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE

Glen P. Doherty, Esq.McNamme Lochner P.C. [email protected]

The Human Rights Law was amended in 2009 to provide for the assessment of civil penalties in employment discrim-ination proceedings. Notwithstanding the fact that the standard for assessing such penalties is clearly described in the statute, the New York State Division of Human Rights (actually its Commis-sioner) recently took a run at ignoring the standard, only to be affirmed by Supreme Court. Supreme Court’s judg-ment was thereafter appealed to the Third Department.

In Matter of JPK Imports v. New York State Division of Human Rights (525329) (October 18, 2018), David Fink filed a complaint with respondent New York State Division of Human Rights, alleg-ing that petitioner JPK Imports, his for-mer employer, unlawfully discriminated against him by terminating his employ-ment because of his disability. Follow-ing a hearing, at which petitioner did not appear, an Administrative Law Judge found that petitioner engaged in unlaw-ful discriminatory conduct and recom-mended awards to Fink for back pay and compensatory damages as well as a civil fine of $1,000. Petitioner filed objections to the ALJ’s recommendation with respondent, which, after reviewing the findings of fact and petitioner’s con-duct during the administrative proceed-ing, adopted the recommendation in a final determination but increased the civil fine to $60,000. Respondent noted that petitioner submitted a letter indicat-ing that it had no intention of appearing at the hearing, demanded that respon-dent’s prosecuting attorney cease and desist with voicemail messages and de-faulted at the hearing. In increasing the civil fine, respondent reasoned that “[t]hese facts, and the record as a whole, evince[d] a serious and wanton disre-gard for the law and warrant[ed] the im-position of a more substantial penalty.”

Petitioner thereafter commenced a proceeding under Executive Law § 298 challenging only the $60,000 civil fine. Respondent cross-petitioned to enforce the final determination. In a January 2017 order, Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s petition and granted re-spondent’s cross petition, noting that re-spondent had found that “[p]etitioner’s complete disregard for [respondent’s] investigation and inquiries throughout the process evinced a serious and wan-ton disregard for the law and warranted the imposition of a greater penalty.” A judgment was entered thereon in May 2017. Petitioner appealed from that judgment.

In reversing Supreme Court, the Ap-pellate Division observed that respon-dent “has been empowered to take appropriate action to fulfill the extreme-ly strong statutory policy of eliminating discrimination.” Regarding civil fines, after determining that a party has en-gaged in unlawful discriminatory con-duct, respondent is authorized to as-sess a civil fine not to exceed $50,000. (See Executive Law § 297 [4] [c] [vi]). Respondent, however, may go above this $50,000 threshold and asses a civil fine not to exceed $100,000 if it deter-mines that the offending party “com-mitted an unlawful discriminatory act which is found to be willful, wanton or malicious.” (Executive Law § 297 [4] [c] [vi]). The Court further noted that “[j]udicial review of an administrative pen-alty is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.”

Here, petitioner did not contest re-spondent’s finding of discrimination nor did it dispute that it did not attend the administrative hearing. Rather, peti-

tioner contends that respondent erred by considering petitioner’s conduct during the underlying proceedings, as opposed to focusing only whether the discrimination was willful, wanton or malicious, when increasing the civil fine to $60,000. The Court agreed, holding that the record disclosed that respon-dent considered petitioner’s discrimina-tory act, as well as petitioner’s conduct during the administrative proceedings, when assessing the $60,000 civil fine. As explained by the Court, Executive Law § 297 (4) (c) (iv) makes clear that a civil fine exceeding $50,000 can be assessed when respondent determines that the offending party “committed an unlawful discriminatory act which [was] found to be willful, wanton or malicious.” The statute thus focuses solely on the nature of the discriminatory act as the basis for imposing a civil fine above $50,000.

Given the foregoing, the Court held that respondent abused its discretion by factoring petitioner’s behavior during the administrative proceedings – i.e., information not authorized by Executive Law § 297 (4) (c) (iv) – as part of the cal-culus to increase the civil fine. Because it could not be determined to what ex-tent the $60,000 civil fine was premised upon petitioner’s conduct during the ad-ministrative proceedings, as opposed to the unlawful discriminatory acts, the matter was remitted for a redetermina-tion of a civil fine.


Advice For Eating Well - Especially During The Holiday Season!

Ann Lapinski, Esq.NYS Dept. of Environmental [email protected]

Focus on eating nutrient dense foods -whole grains instead of refined, colorful foods etc. So eat your greens instead of decorating your house with them;

Get your nutrients from food not sup-plements;

Eat foods that are less processed - like oatmeal instead of Cheerios or freshly cooked meat instead of cold cuts;

Eating a diet full of vegetables. Your dinner plate should be 2/3 vegetables. Grains and protein for the rest;

Eat lean protein (chicken and fish) and vegetable-based protein (beans);

Choose hummus over cheese for an ap-petizer.

Drink lots of water and avoid beverag-es with a high alcohol and sugar content even if the sugar is natural - water not orange juice- a simple glass of wine in-stead of a fancy cocktail;

Eat local food - visit those farmer’s markets! Fill up your basket with carrots, winter squash, turnips, kale, beets, on-ions and garlic. Cut them in even sized pieces, toss em with olive oil and roast them for a veritable feast;

Eat healthy fats daily like olive oil, av-ocado, fatty fish;

Eat organic if it’s available and afford-able;

Learn to listen to your bodies cues about having eaten enough and stop.

Keep a copy of this reminder at your desk. It will help you through the sea-sonal food binge!

Joseph WilliamsCopps DiPaola Silverman, PLLC [email protected]

I have been volunteering with the Alba-ny County Bar Association Family Court Help Center since approximately Sep-tember 2017 and I would recommend the experience to any attorney looking to give back a few hours of pro bono service to the community.

The Help Center is located on the first floor of Albany County Family Court and the program is designed to assist litigants in filling out family court petitions, guiding them through the court process, and/or providing limited legal advice. The beau-ty of this program is that any attorney can volunteer, and no background in family law is required. The Albany County Bar Association provides an informational training on the mechanics of family court and some basic substantive law, which is really all that is needed to assist in the Help Center.

More often than not, the biggest issue facing litigants who come to the Help Center is trying to figure out what to put in their petition(s) and which petition(s) they should file. They are able to articulate in

plain language what their issue is, but are not necessarily able to translate that into the proper application for relief. For ex-ample, if a litigant comes in and tells you that their ex-spouse got a pay raise and they believe they should receive more child support, you can direct them to file a child support modification petition, ex-plaining that child support is modifiable based on a showing of a change in cir-cumstances; if they tell you that their ex-spouse has stopped paying child support altogether, you can direct them to file a child support violation petition, based on non-compliance with a valid court order, and so on.

While it seems relatively straightforward to us as attorneys, having someone there to listen to their story and guide them to-wards filing the correct petition makes a significant difference for many litigants.

Another important role of attorney vol-unteers at the Help Center is to help make sure that the petitions are facial-ly sufficient. Sufficiency of pleadings is something that every attorney, from every practice area, is familiar with, but it is a concept which is entirely foreign to most non-lawyers. Many litigants express frus-tration that their prior petitions (filed pro

se) have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, and they do not understand why. Having an attorney as-sist in drafting the petition ensures that, at the very least, the petition is not subject to dismissal, and the litigant provides the Court with the correct (and relevant) infor-mation. For example, if a party is seeking to modify an existing custody arrange-ment, they can be directed to file a cus-tody modification petition and explain to the Court what has changed since their current order was issued which necessi-tates the requested modification. On so many occasions litigants fail to include in their petitions factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action. Again, this is a concept that is applicable to all attorneys (not only family law attorneys) and helps not only litigants but also the judges, as they are more able to assist the parties before them when they have a properly plead petition.

I would highly recommend volunteering with the Help Center to any attorney look-ing to get involved in meaningful pro bono work. The time commitment is relatively minimal (only a few hours each month) and you make a tangible difference in people’s lives each and every time.

Volunteer Voices Article


“Good fortune will elevate even petty minds, and gives them the appearance of a certain greatness and stateliness, as from their high place they look down upon the world; but the truly noble and resolved spirit raises itself, and be-comes more conspicuous in times of disaster and ill fortune...”

Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, Vol 2

“I will prepare and someday my chance will come.”

Abraham Lincoln

Disasters are ever increasing in num-ber, and the financial and other losses they cause are increasing as well. As lawyers and legal professionals, are we prepared? Can anyone be prepared? During and after a disaster, law firms, as well as other businesses and orga-nizations, are responsible not only for the safety of their personnel, but for the security and accessibility of the confi-dential, financial and proprietary infor-mation they store and maintain. Our goal, of course, is to be those truly noble spirits who rise up in times of disaster and ill fortune. However, it is easier said than done. Meeting these challenges in our complex world cannot be accom-plished in the moment; rather, thought-ful and meticulous advance preparation is required. What does this have to do with ethics or professional responsibil-ity? Everything. Clients are entitled to know that their information is protected, that their funds are secure and that their matters are being handled even in the face of disasters. Moreover, our em-ployees should know that there are spe-cific plans in place to protect them and their personal information in the event of a disaster. What follows is a recent American Bar Association Ethics Opin-ion defining the ethical duty of lawyers to prepare for disasters, and a Florida decision disciplining an attorney who instead decided to “step down” and at-tempt to profit from a disaster.

The ABA Takes the Lead in Establishing Attorney and Firm Obligations in a Disaster

The American Bar Association, rec-

NEWS AND VIEWS FROM ONE GENERAL COUNSEL

Arthur J. Siegel, Esq.Bond, Schoeneck & King, [email protected]

ognizing the many critical issues facing lawyers and law firms when natural di-sasters strike, recently issued Formal Opinion 482 (September 19, 2018). This Opinion imposes significant but necessary burdens on attorneys and law firms to take all the necessary steps to protect clients as well as their docu-ments, protected information and finan-cial assets during and after a disaster. The ABA made these obligations quite clear: “Lawyers have an ethical obliga-tion to implement reasonable measures to safeguard property and funds they hold for clients or third parties, prepare for business interruption, and keep cli-ents informed about how to contact the lawyers (or their successor counsel). Lawyers also must follow the advertis-ing rules if soliciting victims affected by a disaster.” Indeed, the ABA even has a separate committee devoted to “Di-saster Response and Preparedness.” Some of the responsibilities outlined in this recent opinion include: the ability to contact clients; continuing to provide competent representation; continued accessibility to files; obtaining appro-priate court extensions; securing client trust and other funds; and communi-cating with clients concerning the loss of any file materials or trust account records. Many of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”) are di-rectly applicable to disaster response and business continuity. Of note is Rule 1.1 requiring technical compe-tence to meet obligations in the event of a disaster, 1.15 which requires attor-neys to safeguard client property and reconstruct lost property by locating outside sources, and Rule 7.1 through 7.3 governing the solicitation of disas-ter victims. Of course, early and well organized preparation before those dif-ficult moments occur is the only way to successfully fulfill these many critical attorney responsibilities and mandated ethical obligations.

Florida Lawyer Is Suspended For Personally Soliciting Legal Work From Tornado Victims

In Fla. Bar v. Wolfe 759 So. 2d 639 (Fla. Sup. Ct, 2000) a personal injury

attorney was suspended from practic-ing law for one year for his in-person solicitation of prospective clients after a series of tornados destroyed homes and killed and injured numerous individ-uals. Attorney Wolfe also sent around brochures containing misleading infor-mation, and in presenting his contingen-cy agreement to the tornado victims, promised them the maximum recovery. Wolf’s primary defense in mitigation of any penalty was that his addition to co-caine blurred his judgment and “intensi-fied his need to drum up new business.” The Court disagreed, finding that: “He presented the residents with prepared pamphlets and brochures, and offered the residents prepared contingency fee contracts. Such conduct indicates [**17] that Wolfe’s conduct was not spontaneous or spur-of-the-moment; rather, it appears to have been careful-ly planned. As such, we conclude that Wolfe’s in-person solicitation of clients, and his preparations in achieving this goal, do not demonstrate such a level of impairment that his cocaine addiction should serve as a substantial mitigator, or overshadow the seriousness of his vi-olations, in assessing discipline in this case.” It is ironic that this attorney tried to cast himself as a victim of his drug addiction in order to avoid responsibility for targeting real and entirely innocent victims. A case like reminds us that we cannot relax our ethical rules and obligations in exigent circumstances but must, as suggested by the ABA, be even more vigilant in making sure that clients remain protected.

Questions, thoughts, 518-533-3211, [email protected]

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/17046298



HEALTH LAW UPDATE

New Opioid Legislation Draws Skepticism library and YMCA facility in the country; and Google vowed to work with Wal-greens to establish more drug drop-off sites for extra medication.6

The new legislation, however, has been met with significant skepticism by those in the healthcare industry. Ad-diction treatment groups claim that the measures signed into law fall short of what some areas of the country need.7 While the law accounts for $2 billion in grants to bolster treatment and overdose prevention, treatment advocates warn that these grants are merely short-term funds that fail to foster long-term solu-tions needed to curb the number of opi-oid overdose deaths, like the creation of infrastructure and clinics8; in fact, many advocates warn that the decision to uti-lize grants to combat the crisis, rather than create permanent programs, may lead to a situation in which Congress must enact the grants every year.9

Further, treatment advocates empha-size that the new legislation included approval for—but did not appropriate—targeted-response grants for states.10 This issue is exacerbated in states, like Florida, that did not expand their Medic-aid programs.11 In response to the opi-oid crisis, Florida’s Governor, Rick Scott, declared an emergency and applied for about $110 million in federal grants to expand medication-assisted treatment, prescription medications intended to fight addiction, and to distribute 40,000 kits of the overdose-reversing drug Nal-oxone.12 While these federal grants, which are set to expire in 2020, have provided medication-assisted treatment to roughly 7,600 people as well as fund-ed efforts to train healthcare providers in administering addiction-fighting drugs,

Effectively addressing and combating the opioid crisis has been a prevalent issue in recent years. On October 24, 2018, President Trump, as a result of a bipartisan effort, signed into law the Substance Use Disorder Prevention That Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communi-ties (SUPPORT) Act, which is intended to help people overcome opioid addic-tion as well as prevent addictions before they start.1

The final bill, which cleared the Sen-ate by a 98-1 vote, authorizes almost $8 billion for grant programs that encom-pass, among other things, residential treatment programs for pregnant wom-en with substance abuse disorders, inpatient care, and the tracking and treatment of hepatitis C infections; the bill also grants the government the au-thority to study the causes and effects of opioid abuse.2 Another major aspect of the legislation is to make it easier for Medicaid recipients to gain access to inpatient drug treatment programs by injecting an estimated $1 billion into inpatient drug rehabilitation programs.3 Government agencies such as the De-partment of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administra-tion (FDA), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have been tasked with the primary responsibility of carry-ing out the law.4 Meanwhile, members of the healthcare industry are also imple-menting changes to assist in combating the ongoing epidemic. For example, Cigna declared that it will work with vet-erans to reduce overdoses by 25 per-cent in three years; biopharmaceutical company, Emergent BioSolutions, stat-ed it will donate Narcan5 to every public

1 Bloomberg Law, Trump Signs Sweeping Opioid Bill into Law (Oct. 24, 2018), available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/trump-signs-sweeping-opioid-bill-into-law.

2 Id.

3 Bloomberg Law, New Opioids Law Short of Funding Needs, Treatment Advocates Warn (Oct. 24, 2018), avail-able at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/new-opioids-law-short-of-funding-needs-treat-ment-advocates-warn.

4 Id.

5 Narcan is commonly used to reverse drug overdoses. Bloomberg Law, Trump Signs Sweeping Opioid Bill into Law (Oct. 24, 2018), available at https://news.bloomber-glaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/trump-signs-sweep-ing-opioid-bill-into-law.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 It is estimated that in 2017 the opioid crisis claimed the lives of approximately 115 people daily in the United States. Bloomberg Law, New Opioids Law Short of Fund-ing Needs, Treatment Advocates Warn (Oct. 24, 2018), available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/new-opioids-law-short-of-funding-needs-treatment-advocates-warn.

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 E & C, Bipartisan Committee Leaders Announce Opi-oid Legislation Agreement (Sept. 25, 2018), available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/news/press-release/bipartisan-committee-leaders-announce-opioid-legisla-tion-agreement/.

Mary Connolly, Esq.O’Connell & Aronowitz, [email protected]

the majority of the funds have not gone toward investment in new clinics or even prompted healthcare organizations to hire new permanent staff.13

While the bipartisan legislation seeks to curtail the effects of the opioid crisis in the United States, whether it will have any long-term impact remains to be seen. Nevertheless, a joint statement14 issued by Republicans and Democrats demonstrates that the law is viewed as taking an important step forward in sav-ing lives.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/trump-signs-sweeping-opioid-bill-into-law



https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/new-opioids-law-short-of-funding-needs-treatment-advocates-warn









https://energycommerce.house.gov/news/press-release/bipartisan-committee-leaders-announce-opioid-legislation-agreement/




ANIMAL LAW UPDATE

Jonathan G. Schopf, Esq.Schopf Law, [email protected]

Ritual Fowl Killing Case Before NY Court of Appeals

1 Deych v. New York City, 2015 WL 5450180

2 Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police Dep’t., 152 AD3d 113 (1st Dep’t. 2017)

3 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 US 520 (1993)

4 Article 26 provides for penalties for animal cruelty.

On October 17th attorneys for chick-en advocates made their arguments to the Court of Appeals over the ultra-Or-thodox Jewish religious ritual known as “Kapparos”, which is practiced prior to Yom Kippur.

The ritual involves taking a live chick-en, swinging it overhead by its wings while reciting a prayer intended to trans-fer the celebrant’s sins to the chicken. After the swinging a rabbi then slashes the fowl’s throat.

A group called The Alliance to End Chickens as Kaparos sued the city as well as its police and health depart-ments, claiming that the tradition is cruel, unsanitary and in violation of 15 known New York City and State laws including failure to have a license for butchering and slaughtering, labor law violations for employing minors at a place of butchering and animal cruelty to name a few.

The group claims that 60,000 chick-ens are trucked into residential neigh-borhoods in Brooklyn for the three-day event. The groups claim the birds are “stacked in crates and left on the street for days, without food or water, in the el-

ements, waiting for their death, as they will be sacrificed in the ritual.”

As support for the claimed violation of law, the group claims makeshift slaugh-terhouses are erected in the streets. They say the practice of Kapparot leaves dead chickens, blood, feathers, toxins, bird waste and an unbearable stench in its wake.

The case has its origins in a Supreme Court in Manhattan where the group’s plea for mandamus to compel the New York City Police Department to enforce the laws claimed to have been broken was dismissed.1 An appeal of the dis-missal to the Appellate Division, First Department resulted in a 3-2 split affir-mance of the dismissal, paving the way for the matter to be heard by the Court of Appeals.2

In affirming the dismissal the majority of the panel in the First Department held that with the exception of the group’s claims as to Agriculture and Markets §371, that the laws involved the discre-tion and judgment of the police in their application and that such laws do not mandate an outcome of their applica-tion to any particular behavior. The ma-jority further relied upon US Supreme Court precedent which has held that ritual slaughter of animals is protected under the First Amendment to the Con-stitution and applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.3

The majority separately dismissed the

claims pursuant to Agriculture and Mar-kets §371 which provides in pertinent part that:

“A constable or police officer must … issue an appearance ticket … summon or arrest, and bring before a court or magistrate having jurisdiction, any per-son offending against any of the provi-sions of article twenty-six of the agricul-ture and markets law.”4

The majority analyzed the definition of animal cruelty contained within §350 of the Agriculture and Markets Law and determined that the phrase “unjustifi-able physical pain, suffering or death” implied specific discretion on part of law enforcement as to whether or not an act falls within the meaning of animal cru-elty.

The dissent argued, intra alia, that the language of §371 and §350 of the Ag-riculture and Markets Law should have allowed the case to move forward for further discovery and a hearing as to whether or not the practice was “unjus-tifiable”.

I will provide an update when the Court of Appeals issues their decision.

I am searching for the Last Will and Testament of Kenneth Mingo Jr. He lived at 315 Stone Church Rd. Lot 21, Ballston Spa N.Y. 12020. He formally resided at 5544 Co Rt 113 Greenwich N.Y. 12834. If you have any information regarding how I can lo-cate his will please contact Jacqueline Ruff at (518) 885-4246. Thank you.

The purpose of the Albany County Bar Association is to promote professional collegiality among the bench and bar; facilitate public service and access to justice for all; and offer programs, benefits and services to enhance the skills of its members.

MISSION STATEMENT


Past President’s Dinner | November 8, 2018


Youth Law Day at Albany High School was a Success! The ACBA Committee on Attorneys in

Public Service (CAPS), working in col-laboration with the Capital District Black and Hispanic Bar Association (CDBH-BA), organized a Youth Law Day (YLD) held at Albany High School on Novem-ber 2, 2018. CAPS initiated the YLD program at Albany High School in 2011 to expose high school students to the variety of careers to pursue in the legal profession. This year’s YLD provided a wonderful opportunity for the students to meet public service attorneys, pri-vate practitioners, and judges, and the presenters provided inspiration for the students to pursue higher educational goals.

The following attorneys and judges participated in this year’s YLD: Murray Carr, Kathryn Caroll, Madalyn DeTho-masis, Jillian Faison, Marisa Franchi-ni, Hon. Denise Hartman, Hon. Helena Heath, William Kelly, Hon. Rachel Krets-er, Suzann Kushner, Ann Lapinski, Jo-seph Moravec, Erica Pandolfo, Felicia Reid, Ricja Rice, Jennifer Richardson, Hon. Richard Rivera, Jorge Rodriquez, Devlyn Tedesco, Kathy Walter, and Ser-ena Joyce White-Lake.

Students were excited to learn about the pathways to becoming a lawyer and how the law is a way to help others and to remedy the wrongs people may experi-ence in society. The presenters planted seeds of encouragement for students to actively set goals for themselves, emphasized the value of seeking out and having support from mentors along their academic and career journey, and provided advice on how students can best accomplish their goals and make a positive difference in their community. We appreciate the hard work of Alba-ny High School Leadership Academy Principal Jason Breh in organizing the YLD and the efforts and participation of Albany City School District Superinten-dent Kaweeda Adams and Albany High School Principal Jodi Commerford. The YLD is a truly wonderful day of commu-nity service!


Strategies for Obtaining Zoning Compliance CLE November 8, 2018

Juvenile Justice CLE Symposium November 13-14, 2018


Multi-Bar Association Networking Evening November 15, 2018


BENCH & BAR IN THE NEWS

LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP announced it has received twelve practice area rankings in the 2019 “Best Law Firms” listing by U.S. News - Best Lawyers®.

The firm once again received a metropolitan tier-one ranking in appellate practice, commercial litigation, and real estate law along with first-time metropolitan tier-one rankings in banking and finance law and immigration law.

Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman also received metropolitan second-tier rankings again this year for bankruptcy and cred-itor debtor rights/insolvency and reorganization law, business organizations (including LLCs and partnerships), and corporate law and its first metropolitan second-tier ranking for litigation-real estate law.

In addition, the firm earned metropolitan tier-three rankings in litigation-bankruptcy, mediation, and trusts & estates law.

The U.S. News - Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collec-tion of client and lawyer evaluations, peer reviews from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information pro-vided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. To be eligible for a ranking, a law firm must have at least one lawyer who is included in Best Lawyers© in that particular practice area and region. Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman had 13 attorneys honored in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 edition.

THE LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J. HIGGINS, PLLC has been listed in the Ninth Annual US News Best Lawyers Best Law Firm Rankings. Patrick J. Higgins has been listed in the 2019 Best Lawyers in the field of plaintiff’s personal injury and medical malpractice.

On November 13, 2018 HONORABLE PETER G. CRUMMEY, Senior Colonie Town Justice and Court Administrator, spoke to student of the Albany Law School regarding the process of run-ning for elected office, on what it takes to start a campaign and how to maintain stamina through this process. The On Campus luncheon meeting with students was part of the School’s Alumni Initiative in Mentoring Program. Judge Crummey is a 1981 grad-uate of Albany Law School.

On November 13, 2018 HONORABLE PETER G. CRUMMEY provided closing remarks at the 24th Annual Colonie Youth Court Graduation held at South Colonie Central High School.

U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers have recognized HINCKLEY ALLEN for the ninth consecutive year as a Best Law Firm. Hinckley Allen earned national rankings in four practice areas and regionally in 52 practice areas.

Firms included in the 2019 “Best Law Firms” list are recog-nized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving this ranking signals a

unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.

Hinckley Allen is proud to be recognized for excellence in the following practice areas:

METROPOLITAN TIER 1Albany Commercial LitigationLitigation – ConstructionMETROPOLITAN TIER 3Albany Criminal Defense: White-Collar

BENJAMIN W. HILL, ESQ. announces the opening of his new practice located at 50 State Street, 2nd Floor in downtown Al-bany. Website: www.BenHillLaw.com. Phone: (518) 240-1647 | email: [email protected]. The Law Office of Benjamin W. Hill, PLLC specializes in serious personal injury, criminal de-fense, and federal/complex litigation. The firm welcomes Span-ish-speaking clients.

E. STEWART JONES HACKER MURPHY, LLP WELCOMES ROSE McKENNA

E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP is pleased to announce that Rosemary Weaver McKenna has re-joined as Of Counsel to the firm. Rose will provide commercial and transactional legal services to the firm’s clients and practice out of the firm’s Troy office.

Immediately prior to joining E. Stewart Jones Hacker Mur-phy, LLP, Rose was affiliated with a national law firm, providing comprehensive transactional and commercial legal services to business and charitable organizations. Rose has also served as general counsel for a group of affiliated charitable organizations in the educational, medical and housing fields, and has prac-ticed with several area law firms.

Rose brings to the firm over 25 years of experience in repre-senting commercial entities, charitable organizations and health care providers in transactional and operational matters. She has worked with national, state, regional and local organizations in all areas of their operations, including formation and organizational matters, securing tax-exempt status for not-for-profit organiza-tions and tax-exempt status compliance matters, the develop-ment of policies and practices, continuing governance issues and organizational re-structures, mergers, acquisitions, and oth-er affiliations, personnel policies, training and employment mat-ters, licensing, trademark and copyright, and contracting.

E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP focuses primarily in the areas of personal injury, criminal defense, property tax disputes, employment litigation, commercial litigation and mediation and arbitration. The firm was formed by the merger of the E. Stewart Jones and Hacker Murphy, LLP firms in 2015, and has offices in Albany, Troy, Saratoga and Latham. For more information about E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP, please visit our website at

http://www.BenHillLaw.com



ADVERTISING POLICY FOR THE ACBA NEWSLETTER

Advertising & articles appearing in the ACBA Newsletter does not presume endorsement of products, services & views of the Albany County Bar Association.

2018 Rates and Deadlines: Albany County Bar Association Rates: Member: $50 in our classified section (approximately 30-40 words) additional fees will be incurred as the number of words increase. Non-member: $100 in our classified section (approxi-mately 30-40 words) additional fees will be incurred as the number of words increase. There is an additional $10 charge for Blind Ads. Seminars announced: $60 (approx. 30-40 words).

The rates for all photo ready ads are: full page (8.5" x 11") = $550; half page (7.5" x 5") = $375; Quarter page (3.5" x 5") = $300; Business card size (3.5" x 2 .5") = $200.

Classified Advertising Policy: All ads must be prepaid and in writing. We also hold the right to edit all ads. For display adver-tising rates and information, please call (518) 445-7691. All ads must contain wording “Paid Advertising” at the top. It shall be the policy of the Albany County Bar Association that no advertisement should indicate any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on color, handicap, religion, sex, national origin, or age.

Change of Scene and Bench & Bar in the News: Provided at no cost to our members and inclusion is limited to ACBA Mem-bers. All notices must be submitted in writing. E-mail is preferable.

Deadline: The second Friday of the prior month. E-mail ad copy and remit payment to Albany County Bar Association, 112 State Street, Suite 1120, Albany, NY 12207. We also take credit cards, call (518) 445-7691.

CLASSIFIEDTWO OFFICES AVAILABLE in Multi-Lawyer Suite21 Everett Road Ext., (Near I-90 Exit 5)Conference Room, KitchenPhones, Voice Mail, Fax/Scanner/Copi-er, Postage MeterAmple parking. Reasonably Priced Rent. Contact Stephen Levy at (518) 489-1098.

LAW OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE. $1,500 available January 1st. Shared conference room and additional ame-nities in law office suite at 12 Century Hill Drive, Latham. Conveniently located near major highways. Contact Steven D Farer at Farer Law Firm., 518-785-1111.

Tooher & Barone, LLP, is seeking a qualified candidate to step into the role of LEGAL SECRETARY for our small environmental law firm in convenient downtown Albany location. Duties:• Provide administrative support to all members of the office (ex. draft corre-spondence, legal document prepara-tion/assembly, communications with clients and general office duties)• Maintain firm calendar and provide assistance scheduling appointments and conference calls• Daily review, scanning, and distribu-tion of incoming mail, faxes, etc.• Identify and calendar regulatory agency or court-imposed deadlines to in accordance with local, state and fed-

eral rules and regulations• Maintain organizational systems, physical and electronic, for all case files • Prepare weekly and monthly firm meeting agendas• Perform any and all other duties identified by the supervising attorney as necessary to provide professional, cost-effective legal representation to the client; and• Experience, Knowledge, and Skills:• Three (3) to five (5) years prior law firm experience required; Notary Public is a plus, or must be willing to obtain.• Proficiency with Microsoft Office suite products • Organized individual with attention to detail• Ability to prioritize, multitask, and rec-ognize time constraints • Excellent written and verbal commu-nication skills• Self starter, able to work independently• Ability to get along in small office envi-ronment with intermittent tight deadlines• Benefits: Health, dental and vision in-surance; Paid parking in private lot. Salary: commensurate with experienceTo Apply: Submit your cover letter with salary requirement and resume to Tiffani Silverman at [email protected] or directly through this job posting (if available).

OFFICE AVAILABLE – 12” x 15”; 125 Adams Street, Delmar; office with five independent attorneys; near Four Cor-ners; $800/month; includes free park-ing, two conference rooms, internet, reception, copier/fax/scanner, kitchen, utilities, cleaning; phone line addition-al; furniture available for purchase; call Brian Devane, Esq. or Lee Greenstein, Esq. – (518) 475-9844; [email protected]; [email protected]

OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE CPA and CFP with over 50 years combined experience seeking attorney to share existing class A office space at 187 Wolf Road. Large windowed office available. Shared conference room, utility/kitch-enette and reception area. We split the rent, internet and utilities equally. The to-tal annual cost is approximately $12,000 per person. Contact Michael Ryan [email protected].

NYCM INSURANCE is seeking a LE-GAL BUSINESS UNITY MANAGER to oversee Claims Litigation, the external staff counsel office, internal staff coun-sel office and the duties of our corporate counsels. The BU Manager will have legal oversight of NYCM products, pol-icies and rules. Salary range: $67,658 - $117,785. Visit www.nycm.com for more information on this great opportunity, our generous benefits package and to Apply Today!









And “like” us on Facebook /AlbanyCountyBar

Follow us on Twitter @AlbanyCountyBar

Albany County Bar AssociationC A L E N D A R O F E V E N T S

albanycountybar.com [email protected](518) 445-7691

Please visit albanycountybar.com to register and learn more about our upcoming events!

The Albany County Bar Association has been certified by the NYS Continuing Legal Education Board as an Accredited Provider of CLE in the NYS and has also been given approval to provide non-traditional CLE format courses. Hardship Scholarships are available. For a list of our CDs, or additions to our programs, please visit our website: www.albanycountybar.com.

January10 Morning Meet & Greet/Clean Slate Information 112 State Street, Room 930, Albany, NY

24 Annual Board Installation Ceremony Albany County Courthouse, 16 Eagle Street, Albany, NY

February13 Court of Appeals Dinner

Empire State Plaza Convention Center, Albany, NY

The views expressed in the letters and columns reflect the opinions of the authors and may not reflect the views of the Asso-ciation, its Officers, Directors or Members. Opposing viewpoints are always welcome and can be emailed to: [email protected].

Jessica Blain Lewis Briana Briana

Joseph BrucatoTyler Carey

Brienna ChristianoCasey Ciceron

Shannon CorbittChristian D’Alessandro

Collin D’ArcyAriel FallonLaura Fisk

Cheryl FowlerEric Galarneau

Anisha GhoshLinda Griggs

Kaleigh HendersonJeanenne Holt

Christopher HornDaniel Kane

Stephen LydonJennifer McCanneySalomon Menyeng

Renee MergesHeather Orth

Bryanne PerlanskiDavid Rossi

Shannon SarfohMarissa SchatzelMatthew Schrantz

Emily SchultsP. David SoaresMegan SpillaneVincent StarkDavid Szlada

Mary Tanner-RicherEric Tepper

Cecilia WalshMichael Wetmore

NEW MEMBERS

The ACBA welcomes the following new members:


Membership Renewal InvoiceDUE UPON RECEIPT

For questions or assistance contact:

(518) 445-7691 x116 | [email protected]

(This information is kept confidential)

albanycountybar.com | (518) 445-7691

PAYMENT

❏ Check Enclosed ❏ Credit Card ❏ Visa

❏ Mastercard ❏ AMEX ❏ Discover

Card Number:________________________________

Exp. Date:_______________ CVC:_______________

Name on Card:_______________________________

Billing Address: ❏ Firm ❏ Home

PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT TO:

Albany County Bar Association

112 State Street | Suite 545

Albany, NY 12207

LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP (years in the bar)

❏ <5 Year | $95 ❏ Student | $10

❏ +5 Year | $145 ❏ Affiliate | $25

❏ Sustaining | $175 ❏ New Admit

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COSTS

❏ 1-2 Panels | $100 ❏ 5-6 Panels | $200

❏ 3-4 Panels | $150 ❏ 7 Panels | $250

CLE BUNDLE OFFER

❏ <5 Years | $100 UNLIMITED CLE FOR 2019

❏ >5 Years | $200 UNLIMITED CLE FOR 2019

ACBA averages 25 CLE offerings annually. Sign up to attend all year

long for one low price!

FREE FOR THE REMAINDER OF

THE YEAR

I hereby certify that I am an attorney duly admitted and

in good standing in the State of New York or a current

law student.

__________________________________________________

Signature Date

TOTAL DUE: _____________________________

NEW!

IT’S TIME TO RENEW YOUR ALBANY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP.

And It’s Easy!

LOGON and renew online anytime at albanycountybar.com

CALL us at (518) 445-7691 x116

or MAIL us the renewal paper form112 State Street, Suite 545Albany, NY 12207

ACBA Membership Renewals are due February 1, 2019.

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDALBANY, N.Y.PERMIT #749

Thank You AFTER PARTY SPONSOR RECEPTION

AND DINNER SPONSORS

PARKING SPONSOR

VISIT ACBA’S FLIKR TO SEE IMAGES FROM THE EVENING WHAT ARE WE PLANNING NEXT? FIND OUT ALBANYCOUNTYBAR.COM

TO ALL THE COURT OF APPEALS SPONSORS

Albany County Bar Association112 State Street | Suite 545Albany, NY 12207

ALBANYCOUNTYBAR.COM

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAID ALBANY, N.Y.PERMIT #749

FOR THE HOLIDAYS... MARK THOMAS MEN’S APPAREL

Wolf Road Park5 Metro Park Road | Albany, NY 12205

518.438.7887markthomasmensapparel.com