In a random, anonymized sample of 700 guardianship cases filed in Manhattan over a decade, Hunter College researchers found more than 12 percent were brought by nursing homes. Some of these may have been prompted by family feuds, suspected embezzlement or just the absence of relatives to help secure Medicaid coverage. But lawyers and others versed in the guardianship process agree that nursing homes primarily use such petitions as a means of bill collection — a purpose never intended by the Legislature when it enacted the guardianship statute in 1993.
At least one judge has ruled that the tactic by nursing homes is an abuse of the law, but the petitions, even if they are ultimately unsuccessful, force families into costly legal ordeals.
“It’s a strategic move to intimidate,” said Ginalisa Monterroso, who handled patient Medicaid accounts at the Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home until 2012, and is now chief executive of Medicaid Advisory Group, an elder carecounseling business that was representing Mr. Palermo in his billing dispute. “Nursing homes do it just to bring money.”
Preliminary findings of the center’s study are not expected until later this year, but at the request of The Times, the researchers undertook a breakdown of the petitioners in a sample of the 3,302 guardianship cases filed in Manhattan from 2002 to 2012. More frequent petitioners than nursing homes (12.4 percent) were hospitals (16.1 percent), friends and family (25.3 percent) and Adult Protective Services (40.1 percent).
Read entire NYTIMES Article here.
One of the nifty features of Waze is its ability to help find you the best route that has the least traffic. It also has the ability to allow users to warn other users of upcoming speed cameras, road blocks or police sightings so that users will slow down if they want to avoid getting pulled over, but unfortunately this is a feature that law enforcement officials aren’t too pleased with.
Speaking to the Associated Press (via Engadget), these police officers believe that Waze’s police finding feature would make it too easy for would-be cop killers to find their targets. It would essentially be putting them on the map for everyone to find. To that extent they are hoping that Google (who owns Waze) will take this under serious consideration and disable the feature.
Read entire Ubergizmo article here.
The Nonhuman Rights Project says it is the only organization working through the common law to achieve actual LEGAL rights for members of species other than our own.
Their mission is to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals from mere “things,” which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to “persons,” who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them.
Their first cases were filed in December 2013, and this year they say they will file as many suits as they have funds available.
The recent New York Chimpanzee cases are found here with related court documents and transcripts.
Publication 5187 provides information to help you and your clients understand the Affordable Care Act and its effect on their taxes. This publication explains how taxpayers satisfy the individual shared responsibility provision by maintaining minimum essential coverage, qualifying for an exemption from coverage, or making a shared responsibility payment. It also provides information about the premium tax credit, which helps make health coverage more affordable for eligible taxpayers. You will also find a glossary that defines terms related to ACA.
US v. Sheldon Silver Complaint.pdf
The criminal complaint filed against the speaker of the New York State Assembly, Sheldon Silver.
Robert Ambrogi has written a comprehensive survey of moves across the country in the use of legal technicians. You might be surprised (or not) to learn that New York Sate is in the forefront of this movement.
“Even with whatever success we’ve had with public funding of legal services and pro bono work by lawyers, there is still a gaping hole in our system of providing legal services to the poor and people of limited means,” says New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, who has emerged as a leading advocate of allowing nonlawyers to provide limited services.
“We need to think out of the box and look at every possible avenue for filling this justice gap,” Lippman says. “You can get nonlawyers who are experts in a particular area of legal assistance and who can be more effective in that area than a generalist lawyer.”
In May 2013, Lippman appointed a committee with the specific charge of studying this issue, the Committee on Non-Lawyers and the Justice Gap. He asked the committee to focus on the use of nonlawyers in housing, elder law and consumer credit cases–areas where as many as 90 percent of litigants in the New York courts are without lawyers.
NEW YORK’S NAVIGATORS
The recommendations of this committee resulted in Lippman’s launch in February 2014 of a pilot program in which nonlawyers, called navigators, provide free assistance to unrepresented litigants in housing cases in Brooklyn and consumer debt cases in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Navigators provide a range of assistance, from general information given at help desks to one-on-one help completing legal forms and assisting in settlement negotiations.
Navigators may also accompany unrepresented litigants into the courtroom. While they are not allowed to act as advocates in court, they are able to answer questions from the judge and to provide the litigants “moral support.”
In Albany, Lippman created a second project that uses nonlawyers to advise elderly and homebound residents about their eligibility for benefits and other services…
Read Ambrogi’s complete article with more about New York programs by clicking the link below:
Read Prof. Salkin’s summary here.
NY Appellate Courts Finds a Reasonable Probability That Wetlands Designation Is a Regulatory Taking Under Penn Central |
Hat tip to Robert Thomas, Esq. at the Inverse Condemnation Blog for posting this. http://www.inversecondemnation.com ; See also, Bulldozers at Your Doorstep blog – http://eminent-domain-blog.com/appellate-division-affirms-75-increment-applicable-wetlands-taking/
New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 4 v. City of New York, No. D42904 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 11/19/2014)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2014/D42904.pdf
t’s a new year, but the same old juror scams.
Members of the public in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland and other states have been contacted by scammers asking them to follow links and provide personal information in online jury duty questionnaires–or face federal fines or jail time.
One Maryland juror phone scam threatens arrest unless the person purchases a debit card and pays $500. Email phishing scams in Kansas and Georgia even use the name of the Judiciary’s e-Juror program to convince targeted people the scam is legitimate.
Read the full article.
On Monday January 12, 2015, the New York Department of State adopted a regulation that fixes the time within which a person served with an Order to Remedy violation(s) of the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (Uniform Code) must comply with that Order. Specifically, the regulation provides that an Order to Remedy a condition in violation of the Uniform Code must state that full compliance with the Order is required within 30 days after the date of the Order.
The regulation was added as a new section 1203.5 to 19 NYCRR Part 1203. Part 1203 establishes minimum standards for administration and enforcement of the Uniform Code. All cities, towns, villages, counties, and State agencies that are responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Uniform Code are required to comply with Part 1203, including the newly added section 1203.5.
Adoption of this regulation as an emergency rule makes it effective immediately upon filing.
- ALL ORDERS TO REMEDY ISSUED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 12, 2015 MUST STATE THE DATE OF THE ORDER AND MUST INCLUDE A STATEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE FOLLOWING:
NOTICE: Full compliance with this order to remedy is required by _____ [specify date], which is thirty (30) days after the date of this order. If the person or entity served with this order to remedy fails to comply in full with this order to remedy within the thirty (30) day period, that person or entity will be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.
See 19 NYCRR 1203.5(b).
- ALL ORDERS TO REMEDY ISSUED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 12, 2015 MUST BE SERVED, PERSONALLY OR BY CERTIFIED OR REGISTERED MAIL, WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDER. See 19 NYCRR 1203.5(c). This requirement ensures that the person served with an Order to Remedy has at least 25 days following the date of service of the Order in which to comply with the Order. NOTE: If the city, town, village or State agency issuing an Order to Remedy does not serve the Order within five days of the date of the Order, the city, town, village or State agency must issue a new Order, and should ensure than the new Order is served within 5 days of the date of the new Order.
Read more about this new procedure here.