News & Resources - Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC

The Corporate Transparency Act: Your Business Is Probably One of the 36 Million That Needs To Comply With Its Mandatory Reporting Requirements. What You Need To Know and Do Now.

Ansell Grimm November 10, 2024

On January 1, 2024, approximately 36 million American business owners woke up to find a new, complicated, and potentially burdensome federal reporting obligation on their compliance plate. That was the effective date of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a law passed in 2021 as part of a major effort to stop money laundering and related crimes. The CTA attempts to accomplish this objective by requiring about 90% of American businesses to make mandatory and detailed disclosures regarding their “Beneficial Ownership Information” (BOI) to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) division.

Unless your business falls under one of the exemptions outlined in the CTA – and it probably doesn’t – you need to understand and comply (or have complied) with the CTA’s reporting obligations by the dates detailed below. Failure to do so comes with significant consequences, including hefty fines.

FinCEN issued its Final Rule implementing the CTA on September 29, 2022, clarifying what entities are subject to the Act’s reporting requirements and what specific information those entities must provide. Since then, FinCEN has published extensive, detailed, and regularly updated FAQs to provide much-needed clarity and guidance about who is subject to the law, what information must be reported, and when it must be reported.

While hardly comprehensive, the following overview can help you make sense of the CTA and provide the foundation for timely compliance.

Is Your Business a “Reporting Company” That Must Comply With the CTA?

Under the Final Rule, a “Reporting Company” is either a corporation, limited liability company or any other entity – no matter how small – created by filing a document (e.g., Articles of Incorporation) with a secretary of state or any similar office. This means that entities that can be established without such filings, like sole proprietorships and general partnerships, are not subject to the CTA’s reporting requirements.

Section(a)(11)(B) of the CTA contains a list of 23 entity types that are exempt from the law’s reporting requirements. Most exceptions apply to companies that already have ownership reporting obligations under other regulatory schemes, such as securities dealers, banks and other financial institutions, and public companies.

These types of entities do not have to comply with the CTA’s BOI reporting requirements:

Banks.
Bank holding companies.
Credit unions.
Insurance companies.
Issuers of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or that must file supplementary and periodic information under Section 15(d) of the 1934 Act.
Brokers, dealers, and any other entities registered with the SEC under the 1934 Act.
Registered investment advisors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
Public accounting firms.
Companies employing more than 20 people full-time in the U.S. or that filed a federal income tax return in the prior year showing more than $5 million in gross sales or receipts and have an operating presence in the U.S.
Any entity that:
- Has existed for over one year.
- Has not sent or received funds over $1,000 or experienced an ownership change in the previous 12 months.
- Is not actively engaged in business.
- Is not owned by a foreign individual

and

- Does not otherwise hold any assets, including ownership interests, in any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.

“Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners” Whose BOI Must Be Reported

In addition to basic corporate information such as name, address, and tax ID number, Reporting Companies covered by the CTA must provide FinCEN with BOI for two categories of individuals: “Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners.”

“Company Applicants”

The Final Rule defines a “company applicant” as “the individual who directly files the document that first creates the domestic reporting company” as well as “the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing of the document.” Effectively, the person who established the entity by filing the necessary paperwork will likely be an “Applicant” whose BOI must be disclosed.

“Beneficial Owner”

While identifying an Applicant is relatively straightforward, determining an entity’s “Beneficial Owners” can be far more complicated.

The Final Rule defines a “Beneficial Owner” as any individual who, directly or indirectly, either:

Owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company or
Exercises “substantial control” over a reporting company.

The Final Rule and FinCEN’s FAQs discuss what qualifies as “ownership interests” and “substantial control” that would make an individual a “Beneficial Owner” under the CTA.

Substance of Reporting

Non-exempt Reporting Companies must give FinCEN the following information regarding Applicants and Beneficial Owners:

Full legal name.
Date of birth.
Street addresses (identified as a current residential or business street address).
Non-expired state identification document or passport.

Compliance Deadlines

The Final Rule established different compliance deadlines for specific categories of covered entities. However, those original deadlines were modified in November 2023 for entities created or registered on or after the Rule’s effective date of January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2025, to “give those entities additional time to understand the new reporting obligation and collect the necessary information to complete their filings.”

Accordingly, new domestic or foreign Reporting Companies formed during calendar year 2024 must submit their BOI report within 90 days after the date of the entity’s formation (i.e., the filing date of its Articles or Certificate). Prior to the adoption of the Final Rule, all such entities had to file their reports within 30 days after the date of their formation.

For all covered entities formed either before or after 2024, the CTA’s deadlines for submitting BOI reports to FinCEN are:

Existing domestic or foreign Reporting Companies formed before January 1, 2024: On or before January 1, 2025 (one year after the effective date of the CTA.)
New domestic or foreign Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2025: Within 30 days after its date of formation (i.e., the filing date of its Articles or Certificate).

Penalties for Non-Compliance

There are significant penalties for non-compliance or fraud involving CTA reporting. Any person or entity that “willfully provides, or attempts to provide, false or fraudulent information or willfully fails to report when required” faces civil penalties of up to $500 per day for each violation, up to $10,000 in criminal fines, and up to two years in prison.

Assistance With CTA Compliance

As noted, FinCEN has been updating its CTA FAQs regularly, and we recommend that business owners review that guidance for additional information and clarification regarding their compliance obligations. We also recommend that entities work with experienced and credible vendors who focus on assisting entities with preparing and filing required reports. Two such vendors are VCorp Services and CSC Global.

If you have questions about the CTA, please contact Thomas Gironda at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

The ABCs of Mandatory ADR for New Jersey HOAs

Ansell Grimm November 8, 2024

By Elysa Bergenfeld and Nicole Miller

For homeowners and condominium associations (“Community Associations”), disputes among owners or between owners and boards are as inevitable – and undesirable – as special assessments. They can lead to tension and hostility and, if not handled properly and diplomatically, can metastasize into costly and disruptive litigation that leaves a sour taste in everyone’s mouth.

New Jersey law recognizes that such conflicts are bound to happen and that litigation is rarely, if ever, the most productive way to resolve such issues. That is why both the New Jersey Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 et seq., and the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”), N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq., require that Community Associations provide a “fair and efficient” alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism for unit owners to resolve “housing-related” disputes between each other or with the board.

Specifically, as stated in Section 14 of the Condominium Act (and in parallel language in PREDFDA):

An association shall provide a fair and efficient procedure for the resolution of housing-related disputes between individual unit owners and the association, and between unit owners, which shall be readily available as an alternative to litigation. A person other than an officer of the association, a member of the governing board or a unit owner involved in the dispute shall be made available to resolve the dispute. A unit owner may notify the Commissioner of Community Affairs if an association does not comply with this subsection. The commissioner shall have the power to order the association to provide a fair and efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes.

Importantly, a board must participate if an owner requests ADR based on a housing-related dispute. However, while a board must make ADR available to quarreling owners, a unit owner cannot compel another unit owner to participate in ADR.

What Is a “Housing-Related” Dispute?

Community Association boards are not expected to be clearing houses for every possible gripe and grievance a unit owner has. Instead, as noted, the mandatory ADR procedures that boards must establish are only applicable and available to resolve “housing-related” disputes. Citing New Jersey public policy that favors arbitration over litigation whenever possible, courts have interpreted that term broadly, though not limitlessly.

In Bell Tower Condo. Ass’n v. Haffert, the court stated that “the term ‘housing-related disputes’ signifies that only disputes that arise from the parties’ condominium relationship are subject to the arbitration provisions” of the law. It noted several examples of matters that fall outside that definition, including:

An auto accident in the condominium parking lot;
A commercial dispute arising from a failed business venture between two unit owners;
A palimony claim asserted by one unit owner against another;
A legal or medical malpractice claim against another unit owner;
A crime or disorderly persons offense committed by one owner against another; or
Any other dispute that does not arise directly from the parties’ condominium relationship.

What Does Providing a “Fair and Efficient Procedure” Mean?

To satisfy the ADR requirement, boards can offer either mediation or arbitration. Both processes are overseen and conducted by an unbiased neutral third party who has no personal stake in the outcome. As such, neither the board nor any of its agents or employees can act as the neutral third party.

In a mediation, the neutral cannot impose a resolution on the disputing parties but can only work with them collectively and individually to bridge their differences and hopefully reach an agreed-upon solution. In an arbitration, the parties grant the neutral the authority to decide how the matter should be resolved.

The neutral third-party arbitrator reviews evidence, hears arguments from the parties, and hears testimony from witnesses. Though the rules of evidence and procedure are typically less stringent than at a trial, they are often similar to those of a case tried in a court of law. Arbitration can be binding or non-binding.

What ADR Can’t Do

ADR is not a means to secure an order to stop a board from taking action or to force a board to act. That kind of relief can only be obtained through appropriate court proceedings. Similarly, ADR is not the means to obtain monetary damages against an association.

Additionally, matters within a board’s legitimate discretion are not subject to ADR because a court will not substitute its judgment for that of a board. Only alleged violations of governing documents or other legal obligations can be the subject of an ADR demand against a board.

If your Community Association board needs assistance or guidance regarding its ADR policies, programs, and procedures, please contact Nicole Miller or Elysa Bergenfeld at Ansell.Law.

Ansell.Law Welcomes (Back) Associate Adam Solan

Ansell Grimm October 31, 2024

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Adam Solan has joined the Firm as an associate based in our Ocean office. A member of the Wills, Trusts & Estates Department, Solan works with clients to structure plans that benefit them, their families, and their intended beneficiaries.

Before attending law school, Solan was Ansell.Law’s associate firm administrator, ensuring office operations and procedures ran smoothly. He continued working at the Firm as a law clerk while earning his law degree, cum laude, from Syracuse University School of Law. He was welcomed back as an associate after graduation and passing the New Jersey bar exam.

Seth Rosenstein Recognized in 2024 Edition of New York Super Lawyers

Ansell Grimm October 24, 2024

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Seth M. Rosenstein has been named in the 2024 edition of New York Metro Super Lawyers. Recognized for his work in business litigation, Rosenstein is named among New York’s Rising Stars.*

Rosenstein is a partner in the Litigation, Controlled Substances and Regulatory Law, and Residential Real Estate departments. Licensed in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, he represents clients in commercial and civil disputes in state and federal courts, as well as before the American Arbitration Association and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panels. Rosenstein has handled all aspects of securities class action litigation before state and federal courts throughout the United States and serves as a FINRA Dispute Resolution Services Arbitrator. He also regularly handles residential real estate transactions in New Jersey and New York.

Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” are the legal profession’s up-and-coming attorneys, either under age 40 or practicing for ten years or less. These exceptional attorneys comprise fewer than 2.5% of New York lawyers.

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey or the American Bar Association.

Final Defeat of Non-Competes: Delayed or Derailed?

Ansell Grimm October 22, 2024

By Roy W. Hibbard

Of all the many aspects of the employer-employee relationship, few implicate the core interests of both parties and raise as much skepticism and disdain among judges, legislators, and employees as non-competition agreements. Because non-competes restrict the ability of workers to earn a living in their chosen field or profession after their employment ends, they have for many years been the subject of a sustained, if piecemeal, assault in courtrooms and state legislatures where attempts have been made to limit their scope and enforceability or ban them altogether.

2024 was set to be the culmination of this multi-front war on non-competes after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) adopted a Final Rule in April (the original rule was first proposed in January 2023) that would have effectively rendered the overwhelming majority of existing and future non-competition agreements void and unenforceable. This nationwide ban was to go into effect on September 4, 2024. Unsurprisingly, however, litigation challenging the rule ensued mere hours after it was issued. As discussed below, those efforts have, at least for now, put the ban in legal limbo, leaving millions of employers and employees unsure of what lies ahead for non-competes and equally unclear as to what, if anything, they should do now to protect their interests.

What the FTC’s Final Rule Said

The Final Rule declared that, subject to three specified exceptions, all current and contemplated non-competition agreements and clauses constituted an “unfair method of competition” under the Federal Trade Commission Act and thus were prohibited as a violation of federal law. As defined in the rule, a “non-compete clause” is any “term or condition of employment” that “prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from” seeking or accepting work in the United States with another business, or owning their own business in the United States, after their current job ends.

The Final Rule prohibited any person from:

Entering into or attempting to enter into a non-compete clause.
Enforcing or trying to enforce a non-compete clause.
Representing that a worker is subject to a non-compete clause.

In addition, the rule also requires employers to notify non-excepted employees that existing non-competes would not be enforced.

There were three main exceptions to the Final Rule’s ban on non-competes:

“Senior Executives” – The ban did not apply to existing non-competes involving “senior executives” (a worker who earns more than $151,164 per year and is in a “policy-making position”). However, the rule prohibited employers from entering into or enforcing new non-competes with any senior executive after the Final Rule’s effective date.
Seller of a Business – The rule did not ban non-compete provisions signed by a business owner as part of the sale of their ownership interest in the business or the sale of all or substantially all of the entity’s operating assets.
Working Outside the U.S. – The Final Rule only applied to workers who work in or own a business in the United States. Non-compete provisions that would prevent a worker from seeking or accepting employment or owning a business solely outside the United States are not covered.

Notably, the Final Rule did not prohibit non-compete agreements between franchisors and franchisees, although it banned non-competes between employees of a franchisee or franchisor.

Impact on NDA’s

Although the rule does not specifically prohibit non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)’, the FTC has said that an NDA which bars a worker from disclosing, in any future job, any information that is ‘usable in’ or ‘relates’ to the industry in which they work could fall within the prohibition.

Litigation, Injunctions, and Appeals Following the Adoption of the Final Rule

As noted, legal challenges to the ban were filed almost immediately after the Final Rule was adopted. In one case, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on August 20, 2024, just days before the rule’s effective date, that banned enforcement and implementation of the ban.

Brown’s nationwide injunction followed a narrower ruling in the same action this summer that specifically barred the FTC from implementing and enforcing the Final Rule as to the specific plaintiffs in that case. In both instances, Brown ruled that the FTC did not have the power to issue such a sweeping ban.

“The Court concludes that the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus, the FTC’s promulgation of the Rule is an unlawful agency action,” Brown wrote. “(The rule) is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.” On October 18, 2024, the FTC filed a notice of appeal to challenge the August 2024 ruling.

Inconsistent Rulings

A federal district court judge for the Middle District of Florida also issued a similar preliminary injunction on August 14, 2024, finding that the FTC’s ban exceeded the commission’s authority. However, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reached the opposite conclusion in July, holding that the FTC acted “within its authority under the [FTC] Act in designating all non-compete clauses as ‘unfair methods of competition.'”

Where Things Stand Now

The FTC has made it clear that it intends to fight the adverse rulings striking down the Final Rule, filing a notice of appeal in the Florida case on September 24, 2024. Given the split decisions at the district court level, as well as the determination of both the FTC and those who oppose the rule, there is a distinct possibility that the fate of the non-compete ban will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, what the FTC does or does not do in the months ahead will, in no small part, be determined by the presidential election results.

For now, the non-compete status quo remains. This means employers will continue to look to applicable state legislation and jurisprudence to determine how to draft, defend, and enforce these agreements. Currently, over 30 states and many local jurisdictions have laws or ordinances on the books that limit the enforceability of non-competes or ban them entirely. Some of these limits are total, some relate to specific occupations, and some enforce non-compete bans based upon the compensation of the workers involved.

At the moment, New Jersey is not one of those states, as a bill drafted in February 2023 has not moved forward. With regard to New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed a ban passed by the New York legislature in December 2023, although the sponsor of that legislation stated that he would resubmit it sometime this year. Also, New York City is considering several ordinances that would prohibit many non-competes as to workers in the city.

If you have questions regarding the current non-compete state-of-play or have specific concerns regarding your company’s use of non-competition agreements, please contact Roy Hibberd at Ansell.Law.

Melanie Scroble Wins Blue Water Wave Award for Legal Professional of the Year

Ansell Grimm October 16, 2024

Ansell.Law is thrilled to announce that Shareholder Melanie J. Scroble was named Blue Water Wave’s Legal Professional of the Year. Blue Water Wave is an organization focused on peer-to-peer exclusive networking groups for legal and commercial real estate professionals.

Melanie’s award highlights character, excellence, and superior client relations. Clients described her as “a dealmaker who gets things done,” an “outstanding lawyer,” and “bright, loyal, upstanding, respected, and the very best at what she does.” Clients additionally praise her for having the “attitude of a consummate professional” and providing “innovative solutions to industry problems.”

A leader within the Firm, Melanie serves as the on-site managing shareholder of Ansell.Law’s Woodland Park office. She is a member of the Commercial Real Estate, Corporate, Finance & Banking, and Residential Real Estate departments. Throughout her career, Melanie has amassed an impressive track record and has become a trusted advisor for clients nationwide.

Specializing in complex commercial real estate matters, Melanie has successfully closed numerous real estate transactions, including acquisitions, dispositions, leasing, and financing of various commercial properties nationwide. Her expertise lies primarily in shopping centers, retail pads, multi-family apartment buildings, 1031 exchange transactions, and commercial financing and lending. Whether working with national REITs or first-time investors, Melanie is adept at building lasting relationships with her diverse client base. In addition to her practice, she is actively involved with the International Council of Shopping Centers and has been a roundtable speaker at their annual Law Conference.

As the cannabis industry has grown in New Jersey, Melanie has also developed niche experience navigating the challenges surrounding retail leasing matters. She is a valued member of the Firm’s Controlled Substances and Regulatory Law practice group.

Peter Paras Joins Ansell.Law

Ansell Grimm October 1, 2024

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Peter C. Paras has joined the Firm’s Matrimonial and Family Law Department as counsel. He has dedicated his career exclusively to the practice of family law and brings deep knowledge and industry expertise.

“Welcoming an attorney at Peter’s skill level, with his tremendous experience in divorce and family law matters, along with his contributions to the New Jersey legal community, is a critical component of our strategic growth plan,” said President and Managing Shareholder Michael V. Benedetto. “We’re thrilled to have him join the Firm. Peter’s vast talents as a trial attorney and counselor will benefit our clients immediately. We’re also looking forward to him mentoring our younger attorneys and helping build future leaders in family law.”

A highly sought-after attorney, Paras is known for his legal acumen and courtroom skills and is widely respected by his peers. He is active in the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Family Law Section and has served on its Executive Committee for many years. In recognition of his distinguished career, Paras has been inducted into the Matrimonial Lawyers Alliance and is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Ansell.Law Welcomes Catherine Brennan

Ansell Grimm September 27, 2024

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Catherine M. Brennan has joined the Firm as a partner in the Community Association Department. She brings extensive experience representing homeowners associations, condominiums, and cooperative communities, enhancing the capabilities of the thriving practice.

With a strong background in litigation and advisory roles, Brennan will supervise and carry out the Department’s litigations, including lawsuits filed by clients, and defend those clients and their board members against lawsuits filed by others. Throughout her career, she has deftly navigated this legal area’s complexities, guiding clients on governance, dispute resolution, community transition, construction defects, and regulatory compliance matters.

“Cathy’s depth of knowledge across all facets of community association law is spectacular,” said Partner and Community Association Department Chair David J. Byrne. “A gifted litigator and counselor, we’re thrilled to have Cathy on our team.”

Before joining the Firm, Brennan amassed three decades of commercial litigation experience through her work at prominent national and regional law firms. She is based in Ansell.Law’s Princeton office.

In Victory Obtained by Ansell.Law’s Community Assoc. Attorneys, Court Rules Non-Disabled Husband of a Disabled Condo Owner Has No Separate Law Against Discrimination Claim

Ansell Grimm September 26, 2024

Every community association board in New Jersey needs at least a basic working understanding of the state’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD). LAD is most relevant to community associations in concern of residents who claim to be disabled. In this regard, LAD may require community associations to make “reasonable accommodations” in that community’s rules when that accommodation is necessary to afford the resident equal use and enjoyment of his dwelling.

However, as illustrated by a significant victory recently obtained by Ansell.Law’s David Byrne and Nicole Miller, the protections and rights that LAD provides to disabled individuals are not transferable. Specifically, in Player’s Place II Condominium Association, Inc. v. Pozniewski, et al., the Superior Court held that a disabled resident’s non-disabled spouse does not have a LAD claim because he may have been negatively impacted by the alleged discrimination against the disabled individual.

Ansell.Law represented the condo association with respect to its handling of or its dog-related rule in connection with a disabled resident. The resident sought an entitlement with respect to her dog, that the resident characterized as an emotional support animal (ESA).

After Ansell was successful at trial, the litigation ended up before the New Jersey Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of ESAs in New Jersey condominiums generally:

“A resident of a condominium complex is entitled under state and federal law to request an accommodation to a pet policy in order to keep an emotional support animal. The individual must first demonstrate they have a disability under the LAD. In addition, they must show that the requested accommodation may be necessary to afford them an ‘equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.’ The housing provider then has the burden to prove the requested accommodation is unreasonable.”

Even though he is not disabled, the disabled resident’s spouse also sought money in relation to LAD. However, the spouse’s LAD claim was not based on anything related to him. It rested entirely on his wife’s LAD claim. The spouse suffered no actual, personal harm concerning anything contemplated by LAD.

Following the Supreme Court decision and on behalf of the association, Byrne and Miller filed a motion for summary judgment as to the spouse’s LAD claim. The Superior Court granted that motion. The court agreed with the association that the LAD is not applicable to him. Additionally, the court concurred that just because a spouse, sibling, or parent may be “sorely distressed” by discrimination suffered by their family member, that distress does not make the spouse the functional equivalent of an aggrieved person who can bring a claim under LAD.

If you have any questions about this decision or how LAD applies to your New Jersey community association, please contact Nicole Miller or David Byrne at Ansell.Law.

Ansell.Law’s Seth Rosenstein Secures Summary Judgment in Pivotal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Litigation

Ansell Grimm September 25, 2024

As noted in a recent article published by Ansell.Law Partner Seth M. Rosenstein, nuisance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) cases have cost American businesses millions of dollars, and settlement is often the path of least resistance. It is often the case that an aggressive defense of the claims – particularly when the claims are frivolous – benefits both the business or property owner defending the action, as well as the greater community, by deterring vexatious litigation primarily focused on lining counsel’s pockets.

In one particularly egregious ADA case, the plaintiff claimed that he traveled from Lower Manhattan to Midtown for the purpose of having a document notarized — and that he was unable to access the defendant’s building as a result of a single, small step from the sidewalk. The plaintiff conveniently ignored numerous issues with his case, particularly those stemming from a dearth of facts and crucial information from his cookie-cutter complaint. This is hardly surprising as plaintiffs in ADA cases often profit from the sheer number of cases filed, and the complaints filed in these actions tend to be identical to one another.

The Ansell.Law team aggressively defended this action, and after reviewing the extensive and meticulously detailed moving papers drafted by Rosenstein, the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York questioned the “tester” plaintiff’s intent to return to the subject property and found that he had “not shown a sufficiently concrete intent to return under the heightened standard” of the Second Circuit’s standard set in Calcano v. Swarovski North America. Put another way, the court rejected the plaintiff’s laughable assertion that he (i) traveled to Midtown Manhattan to notarize a document, (ii) frequently needs documents notarized or has a specific document requiring notarization in the future, and (iii) intended to return to Midtown Manhattan for notarization services in the future. The property owner could have rolled over and negotiated a settlement of questionable claims, but instead, it elected to fight – and ADA plaintiffs will think twice before bringing an action against the owner in the future.

If you or your business have been named as defendants in an ADA case, please contact Ansell.Law Partner Seth M. Rosenstein to discuss the path forward.

Recent Posts