News (All)

What Does Legalization of Marijuana in New York Mean for Employees & Employers?

Posted: April 12th, 2021

By: Vincent Costa, Esq. email

Tags: ,

With the legalization of recreational marijuana in New York State, employers and employees alike might be wondering to what extent an employer can tell employees to “Keep Off the Grass.”

Before we tackle employment-related issues raised by the legislation, here is a summary of the main provisions of the new law:

Permitted Use

  • In New York State, adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to three ounces of marijuana but unable to sell it until a retail system is set up
  • Adults 21 and over will be allowed to smoke marijuana in any public place where smoking is allowed
  • Restrictions will be placed on smoking cannabis in restaurants, schools, and the workplace
  • Eventually, adults 21 and over will be able to cultivate six plants for personal use at home
  • Municipalities will be able to impose regulations and create restrictions such as banning the retail sale of marijuana

Criminal Regulation

  • People with marijuana-related convictions that are no longer criminalized will have their records automatically expunged
  • Police will not be allowed to use the smell of marijuana to justify vehicle searches
  • Driving while under the influence of marijuana will still be illegal

Tax Structure

  • Medical marijuana taxes will remain unchanged
  • Recreational marijuana will have a 13% tax rate with 9% allocated to the state and 4% to localities

As New York State joins the 15 other states (as of this writing) that have legalized the adult use of marijuana, a major question is what the impact the new legislation will have on the workplace.

Can Employers Still Drug Test for Marijuana? How Does the Law Impact the Hiring Process?

Currently, even with the new legislation, there is no law that bans marijuana from drug testing in New York State as a whole. However, New York City has already showcased its less rigid stance on marijuana drug testing. As of May 2020, NYC banned most employers from requiring job applicants to submit to a marijuana drug test as a condition of employment with the exception of positions in law enforcement, transportation and construction. Now that marijuana is legal, it’s possible that New York State could follow NYC’s lead and ban marijuana testing as well.

While employers might still be able to drug test for marijuana, an amendment to Section 201-d of the New York Labor Law explains that employers may not refuse to hire, employ, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against someone who uses cannabis lawfully while off-duty and off-premises. Therefore, despite it being legal for employers to test for marijuana, a positive marijuana test does not necessarily equate to workplace “impairment.” Workplace “impairment” would permit an employer to take adverse action.  The legislation defines being “impaired” by cannabis use when an employee “manifests specific articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s job position.”

It is important to note that while New York has legalized the possession and use of recreational marijuana, under federal law, marijuana is still illegal. If that sounds confusing, that’s because it is. While the new law requires that employers follow state law when it comes to marijuana, it also provides that an employer is exempt from following the nondiscrimination provisions of the marijuana legislation if complying would result in the loss of a federal contract or federal funding.

Can Employers Control Employee Use of Marijuana Outside of Working Hours?

While the law on testing for marijuana in the workplace is still unsettled, employers will still be able to ban it from the workplace and use being high on the job as basis for termination. However, while employers can prohibit the use or possession of marijuana on-site or during work hours, they cannot control what an employee does or does not do outside of working hours. So employers cannot prohibit employees from smoking pot outside of working hours, nor can they discriminate against employees who do so.

What Kind of Workplace Policies Can Employers Set?

While some may welcome the scent of marijuana in the air at an outdoor concert, the same scent may not be as well received in the office. So employers should take advantage of the opportunity to update their employee handbooks and spell out the consequences of using marijuana during working hours – typically, in a manner that resembles the consequences of alcohol use. Similar to how an employer can set an alcohol-free policy where employees are not allowed to be intoxicated on the job, they can do the same for marijuana and prohibit being “impaired” by cannabis use. If an employer mandates a drug-free policy in their handbook, that means they might not only require that employees stay off the grass, but also keep it off of workplace premises.

Additionally, employers can set policies for marijuana usage during lunch and break times. Employers should clearly communicate with employees to ensure they are aware of their employer’s drug-related policies, as well as train and advise managers on the policy changes.

New York’s approach to navigating the legalization of marijuana will be a constantly evolving topic over the next several months and even years. If you have any questions about specific guidelines, situations, or need a policy revision for your business, please contact our Labor and Employment Department at (631) 738-9100.

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

CMM Brings Contentious Litigation to Successful Settlement

Posted: April 12th, 2021

When emotions are running high during a contentious litigation, it can be difficult for the parties living and breathing it to take a step back and decide the best path forward. A CMM client in the technology space recently found itself in that situation. Thanks to CMM’s business-focused approach, the client was empowered to see the full picture and make the best decision for the business.

Our client had sold a technology product to the plaintiff, who complained that it did not work properly; our client contended that the plaintiff had simply used it wrong despite receiving training and support. A lawsuit ensued, with an immense amount of discovery and tension to match. The parties would not budge on their versions of what happened, and it appeared that the litigation could go on indefinitely. The distance between the parties seemed to grow each day.

Sometimes litigation is a necessary and best approach to handling a dispute. Other times, expensive litigation can be avoided by a lawyer who takes the time to truly understand the issues. CMM’s David Green recognized that settling the case was in the best interest of all parties. Green was able to convince the plaintiff, as well as our client, that prolonged fighting through litigation would not benefit either side. Ultimately, the parties were able to put emotions aside and make a deal.

“Outstanding settlement! I’m very pleased with the result and thank you for keeping settlement discussions alive,” our client’s insurance adjuster shared with Green.

The plaintiff’s attorney agreed, telling Green that “Resolution is always possible with a professional on the other end.”

CMM is in the business of helping clients achieve their goals in the best way possible – not in litigating for litigation’s sake. Learn more about our litigation work here.

Delivering Bad News as a Negotiation Strategy

Posted: April 6th, 2021

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

Tags:

Delivering bad news may not top anyone’s favorite-things list, but did you know it can be used as a weapon in a negotiation? Whether you use it to gauge a reaction, make a counteroffer, or set the stage for other news that you may have, delivering bad news is an art. Keep reading as I talk about three ways to deliver bad news and how to wield these methods in a negotiation.

1. Using the Sandwich Technique

  • Step 1: Start with a genuine compliment or positive statement
  • Step 2: Be specific and state the meat of the matter using words
  • Step 3: Suggest a way to move forward or your proposed solution

The sandwich technique can be used to deliver various kinds of bad news. Here are a few:

The Bad News:How You Can Use It:Examples:
You have to tell an employee that they’re not performing well  Get the employee to perform better“Your work at the company has been great; you are very detail-oriented and organized. However, your performance has been down recently. Let’s meet next week to discuss your next project. ”
You’re telling your boss your skills aren’t being utilized  Get that promotion you want  “I really love working here; I’ve learned so much. However, I feel like I could bring so much more to the table in a more senior role. Would I be able to schedule a performance review where we review my performance and explore growth within the company?”
You decline a sum that is offered in a negotiation  Get a better price  “I really love the features of the car; the sleek design is exactly what I’m looking for. Unfortunately, I really do not think I will be able to afford that. Is there any way we can negotiate a lower price?”
You’re increasing rent your tenants must pay  Soften the blow of increased rent to your tenants“You are a wonderful tenant; you always pay on time! However, I do want to let you know that starting next month, I have to increase the monthly rent due to the pandemic. I will send you a new contract to look over.”
You’re unable to make a paymentLower a price or buy time  “You know how I always pay on time and the full amount? Well, this month I need to ask for an extension, just for a few days. I will be able to pay the full amount in a week.”

By using the sandwich method, you can frame your bad news, constructive criticism or whatever you are trying to negotiate with a compliment that is positive, and then end with a solution. By proposing a way to move forward as the last step, you can create an actionable plan to keep the negotiation moving. This will force the person you are negotiating with to respond.

2. Use an Accusation Audit/Take the Sting Out

If you’ve ever started a sentence with “No offense but…” or “You’re going to kill me but…,” then you’re familiar with the “accusation audit” technique.

You may want to try this technique if you’re dealing with someone who has an already established negative assumption of you. For instance, if you’re trying to sell medical equipment to a doctor who is already suspicious of you and your products, you might want to state their assumption out loud and then follow it up with something more reassuring. This way, you can wield the bad news to your advantage to soften the person you’re negotiating with. Here’s an example: “You probably think I’m trying to scam you. (Pause) However, I want you know that people see real results with our products.”

You can also use an accusation audit to set and then exceed expectations by making someone think the bad news is worse that it is – so when you deliver it, it stings less and the person you’re negotiating with will think or say something along the lines of: “Oh, that’s not so bad! I thought you were going to say the whole deal is off!” An example of this type of accusation audit might go: “Alright, so you’re going to think that the company views this project as a waste of time after I tell you this. (Pause) I’m really upset about this too, but I have to cut the budget by 25% for the project you’re currently working on. “

3.  Make Observations to Prompt a Response

Say you make a calculation error in a report. Wouldn’t it feel better to receive a reply that says, “Somehow I got different numbers, let’s both recheck to see what we get again” rather than “Your calculation is wrong”? The non-accusatory approach – by making open ended observations – can work the same way. This tactic avoids putting the blame on the person you’re giving bad news to. The person you are negotiating with will also feel prompted to respond by offering their own perspective on the issue – and it’s also a great way to avoid incriminating yourself when delivering the news.

By using phrases like “It seems like” and “It looks like,” the bad news you are delivering can be softened to your advantage. For example, you can say “It seems like the team is struggling to meet deadlines recently…” rather than “You missed several deadlines recently” or “It looks like you missed the March payment for rent…” rather than “You missed the March payment, where is it?”

Now that you’re an expert on delivering bad news, I urge you to try one of these strategies the next time you’re in an uncomfortable position. Knowing how to communicate bad news is an important skill to have in your arsenal, so instead of viewing it as something to dread, try to view it as the weapon it is. Now, grab your delivering bad news tactics, use them the next time you’re in that situation, and take control of your negotiation.

[1] Read more about delivering bad news in former FBI top hostage negotiator Chris Voss’s book, Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended on It (HarperCollins 2016).

Can a City or Town be Held Responsible for the Actions of its Snowplow Drivers?

Posted: April 2nd, 2021

By: Scott Middleton, Esq. email

Tags: ,

Spring is finally here, and now that the last of the snow from the recent snowstorms has melted after being piled high, we can finally see the grass again. Although snowplows may be in hibernation until next year, you may wonder: did any municipalities face liability for snowplow accidents during this past messy winter? While rare, snowplow accidents happen. But can a municipality be held responsible for the actions of its driver/employee? The answer is generally, not very often. 

In most instances a snowplow operator “actually engaged in work on the highway” is exempt from the rules of the road and may only be held liable for damages caused by an act done and reckless disregard for the safety of others.[1] The claimant/plaintiff must establish that the “operator acted in conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.” This type of municipal law makes it difficult to prove an accident was the operator’s fault.

In this case, an employee of the Village of Great Neck Estates was operating a Village-owned snowplow. While in reverse, the snowplow was involved in an accident with a pedestrian walking in the street. The plaintiff later sued the employee and the Village for personal injuries. The court held that the employee did not act with “reckless disregard for the safety of others” since the employee testified that he had the beeping alert of the snowplow activated, was traveling at a low speed, and had the snowplow lights on. Additionally, the employee testified that he was looking in the snowplow’s mirrors while traveling backward but did not see the pedestrian behind the snowplow. In this instance, the plaintiff was unable to prove that the operator acted in “conscious disregard of a known or obvious risk.”

Contrast those facts with the long resolved Neddo case from 1949, where an automobile collided with a snow scraper on a highway in New York.[2] In this case, the state was ultimately found liable for failing to have proper lighting on a snow scraper. Likewise, in the 1982 Cherico case, New York City was held liable after a car accident when a snowplow-equipped truck caused an accumulation of ice and snow to fly over a guard rail and smash a driver’s windshield.[3] In that case, an engineer testified that that the snowplow operator did not follow the proper method of snow removal, which would have been to push the snow off the roadway onto the right shoulder instead of into the center.

If a municipality is served with a Notice of Claim for a vehicular accident involving a snowplow, it should be treated like any other claim and forwarded to the insurance carrier or third-party adjuster. Realize, however, that only in rare circumstances will a municipality be held responsible for the actions of its snowplow operators.

At CMM, we know that navigating municipal law on your own can be a challenge. If we can be of any assistance or you need a municipal law attorney on your side, please feel free to contact us at (631) 738-9100


[1] Kaffash v. Village of Great Neck Estates, 190 A.D.3d 709 (2d Dep’t 2021).

[2] Neddo v. State of New York, 300 N.Y. 533 (1949).

[3] Cherico v. City of New York, 88 A.D.2d 889 (1st Dep’t 1982).

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

CMM Closes International M&A Deal for Dutch Company Specializing in Smoking Products

Posted: April 1st, 2021

In a display of CMM’s expansive reach, the firm’s M&A team has completed another cross-border deal.

The deal involved a Dutch company that sold its equity interest in a California LLC that specializes in the manufacture and sale of rolled cones and tubes for the smoking industry. In addition to the sale to their business partners, the client also sold intellectual property rights to several patents and trademarks for certain smoking products that are distributed by the California entity.

The transaction was three years in the making, with numerous starts, stalls, stops, and restarts, but CMM’s team – led by Donald Rassiger with the critical support of corporate paralegal Katharine Campolo – was able to push the complicated deal over the finish line.

“Thank you for the great effort you all had and all the good work you did for the brand and the deal that took place. This is no goodbye!” the client shared following the closing.

CMM continues to push forward and embrace challenging times through hard work and positivity. The deal demonstrates the comprehensive diligence that clients expect from CMM.  Learn more about our Mergers & Acquisitions practice and call us at (631) 738-9100 for guidance on your next transaction.

Campolo Interviews Founder of Royalty Pharma at Entrepreneurs Edge 2021

Posted: March 30th, 2021

Event Date: April 8th, 2021

Please join us for Stony Brook University‘s annual Entrepreneurs Edge as CMM Managing Partner Joe Campolo interviews Pablo Legorreta, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Royalty Pharma, the largest buyer of biopharmaceutical royalties and a leading funder of innovation across the biopharmaceutical industry. Campolo is an experienced interviewer known for his challenging questions that get to the heart of the entrepreneur’s personal journey. The event provides a unique behind-the-scenes look at what it’s like to build a successful business.

Don’t miss this Q&A with two Long Island business leaders as they discuss Pablo Legorreta’s inspiration for starting Royalty Pharma, the top factors of success for his company, and more on his industry leadership and great involvement in philanthropy.

DATE: THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 2021

TIME: 6:00 PM

WHERE: VIRTUAL ON ZOOM

Campolo Named to Top 25 Most Powerful People in Law on Long Island

Posted: March 29th, 2021

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP congratulates Managing Partner Joe Campolo on being recognized as one of the 25 Most Powerful People in Long Island Law. The LIBN Power 25 Lawyer List honors dedicated, accomplished attorneys who have persevered through challenges and positively shaped Long Island by making inspiring impacts on the lives of their clients and our region.

“We found these Power 25 attorneys have a true passion for their profession, but they do more than practice law. They have compassion for their clients. They have a comprehensive knowledge of their practice areas. They identify and accomplish important goals. In fact, they have helped shape the way we live and do business. No matter how busy they are, they continue to impress LIBN with their commitment to take the time to hear the needs of people, businesses, and Long Island,” says Joe Dowd, LIBN Editor & Associate Publisher.

As Managing Partner of CMM, Joe Campolo has advised business owners, executives, and board members on legal and business strategies. Highlights of his work include negotiating complex issues to a successful resolution with the SEC, achieving settlements for international corporates and not-for-profits under investigation by state agencies, guiding business owners through business breakups, and successfully negotiating multimillion-dollar projects for real estate developers.

Campolo is recognized for his business leadership and philanthropic efforts on Long Island, most notably his involvement as Chairman of HIA-LI’s Long Island Innovation Park at Hauppauge (LI-IPH) Task Force, where he attracts critical attention and investment to the park. As immediate past chairman of HIA-LI Board of Directors, Joe Campolo fights tirelessly for the economic stimulation and growth on Long Island.

Glass Joins Staller Center for Free Webinar: Gift Planning

Posted: March 23rd, 2021

Event Date: April 14th, 2021

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, a Forbes Top Corporate Law Firm in America, in partnership with the Staller Center for the Arts, presents a complimentary webinar titled Gift Planning on April 14 at 3:00 p.m. The webinar will feature Martin S. Glass, Esq., who will lead attendees through a comprehensive overview of planned giving and creating a vision to benefit you, your loved ones, and your charity.

Speakers:

Vincent Clark: Intermin Director of Planned Giving at Stony Brook University

Ashley Fetter: Assistant Director of Gift Planning at Stony Brook University

Martin S. Glass, Esq.: Elder Law Attorney at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP

Date: April 14, 2021

Time: 3:00 p.m.

The webinar is free but registration is required.