News (All)

Malafi cited as workplace expert in Newsday feature “With Spotlight on Sexual Harassment, Employers Should Take Heed”

Posted: December 31st, 2017

Cases of sexual harassment have been making headlines on an almost daily basis in recent months. While many of the accounts have involved power players in media, entertainment or politics, they have shined a spotlight on the issue as a whole.

To protect your business, train employees and managers on what constitutes sexual harassment. “A lot of people don’t realize where the line’s crossed,” says Christine Malafi, a partner at Ronkonkoma-based Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, who has advised clients on sexual harassment prevention training.

Following the law is great, but employees need to implement best practices. For example, while employees can socialize, a best practice would be to prohibit supervisors from after-hours, one-on-one socializing with subordinates being considered for a promotion, she says.

Another best practice: Don’t permit sexual innuendo during business discussions. And, of course, both the law and best practices require that there’s never a quid pro quo — an employee can never be asked for sexual favors in return for a job benefit, Malafi says.

Read the full article on the Newsday website.

Levy Talks Real Estate in LIBN Editorial “What Started in Patchogue Is Now Mainstream”

Posted: December 14th, 2017

By Steve Levy

Steve LevyAt the Vision Long Island Smart Growth Summit last week I was asked by a reporter to provide advice to incoming Nassau executive Laura Curran’s transition team. The conversation made me reflect upon my own transitioning before I took office as Suffolk executive in 2004.

It was there I decided I wanted to merge the county’s housing division with the Economic Development Department. I appointed the former head of the Long Island Housing Partnership, Jim Morgo, to head the new department. We created a vision that centered downtown redevelopment upon an infusion of new, vibrant workforce housing to be built in the vicinity of the walkable Main Street corridor.

By the time we took the reins in January, I had already given the directive to create a pool of funds in the amount of $15 million to be used as seed money to incentivize any municipality that would take the plunge. I thought we’d have so many takers that we’d exhaust the fund with the first few days. But, for most, the one thing more powerful than the lure of millions of free dollars was the potential wrath of civic groups that might oppose these proposals of higher density.

There was one leader who called to say he’d take as much as we could give him. That man was Mayor Paul Pontieri who, with his trustees in Patchogue, was prepared to roll out plans for a major redevelopment initiative in the village. And, we agreed, it started with the affordable housing.

Not one, not two, but three major housing complexes were built using almost all of the $15 million we put up. What we found was that the young people renting at the new Copper Beach Village apartments, the bohemian Art Space units for up-and-coming artists, and the Tri-Tec housing and retail complex, were ready made customers for the local bagel stores, dry cleaners, and stationers. And then there were the bars, theaters and restaurants that gave the village a thriving nightlife vibrancy.

There was, however, one glaring problem. So many people were flocking to Patchogue that there wasn’t enough parking. It’s the type of problem, the mayor notes, that other mayors would love to have.

Patchogue’s renaissance put a stake in the heart of the myth that higher density would cause turmoil, homeowner unrest and more social problems. The village morphed from a downtown with a sky high vacancy rate to near full capacity. (It also showed how important sewers were for revitalization.)

What did Paul do that others didn’t? He simply said “yes.” Let developers come in with exciting new plans, let them make a profit, and watch how village revenues will be enhanced and businesses flourish. Watch how young people, who otherwise would be moving to the coolness of Manhattan or Brooklyn, decided to stay home on Long Island.

At a real estate seminar hosted by my law firm, Campolo Middleton & McCormick, my good friend Joe Campolo asked Long Island Builders Institute Executive Director Mitch Pally about Long Island’s future land use patterns. Mitch took great joy in talking about the recent rejuvenation in Farmingdale. He joked about how in the past he would only use Patchogue as an example of how to do it right. It’s not that he didn’t want to cite other examples. It’s just that there weren’t any others to talk about. But, eventually Patchogue’s success proved contagious. Its model is now being mirrored in numerous sites including Bay Shore, Ronkonkoma, and Wyandanch to name a few.

The Smart Growth seminar highlighted these projects and how they are showing that The Island is finally starting to adapt to its changing demographics and economics. There’s still a long way to go, but we are seeing attitudes change. Builder Don Monti, who spoke at the Summit, noted that higher density and affordable housing, which once sparked fears of bringing Queens to Long Island, is far more often today seen as a way to keep our millennials and empty nesters close to home.

Much of it all started in those transition days and with a mayor who was simply willing to say yes. Thanks Paul.

Read it on LIBN.

Innovation on Long Island featuring Dr. Yacov Shamash of Stony Brook University and Mitch Pally of the MTA and LIBI

Posted: December 14th, 2017

In this episode, Joe Campolo caught up with Dr. Yacov Shamash, VP for Economic Development at Stony Brook University, and Mitch Pally, CEO of LIBI and an MTA board member. Yacov and Joe talked about the many ways Long Island has changed in the past 20 years, including the emergence of Long Island’s innovation economy; exciting things happening at LIHTI, the “godfather” of business incubators; and the secret to keeping talent on Long Island. Next, Joe had an animated discussion with Mitch about changes to Long Island’s home-building economy as trends shift from single-family homes to mixed use developments and transit-oriented hubs; Patchogue’s example of proactively revitalizing communities and the leadership it takes to make that happen; and why Long Island can’t build its way out of transportation problems with highways, but that we can and should invest in bus and rail transit improvements.

January 31 – CMM Business Breakfast: “Master the Emotion & Psychology of Negotiation” Presented by Joe Campolo

Posted: December 13th, 2017

Event Date: January 31st, 2018

Whether you’re negotiating the release of hostages, negotiating with your toddler to try a new food, or something in between, the common thread is that all negotiations are based on human interaction. To succeed in any negotiation, you must understand the psychological and emotional principles at play and how to use them to your advantage.

At his last presentation on the art of negotiationJoe Campolo, a former Marine and the managing partner of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick – whose negotiation skills have taken him to the top of the business world – covered the basic building blocks that all negotiators need. Now, join Joe for an advanced seminar exploring the psychological and emotional side of negotiation, and how mastering these concepts will lead to success. At this seminar, you’ll learn:

  • The value of preparation and how to do it effectively
  • The critical role of empathy, how to distinguish it from sympathy, and how to put it to work
  • How to identify the forces that hold you back in high-stress situations and strategies to overcome them
  • How to use psychological principles to diffuse the tension in difficult negotiations, engage with your adversary, and uncover more win-win possibilities

No matter your industry, negotiation style, or personality, you will undoubtedly face difficult negotiations in your professional and personal life. This presentation will train you in the emotional and psychological forces at work in your own mind during a negotiation – and how to recognize them in your adversary to steer any negotiation in your favor.

DATE: Wednesday, January 31, 2018

LOCATION:

Radisson Hotel Hauppauge-Long Island
110 Vanderbilt Motor Parkway, Brentwood

AGENDA:

8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. – Registration and Breakfast
9:00 a.m. – 10 a.m. – Presentation

Register here.

SPONSORED BY:

 

 

 

 

 

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective…Negotiators

Posted: December 12th, 2017

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

Tags:

As Stephen R. Covey’s groundbreaking business book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People approaches its 30th birthday, I still find it to be more relevant than ever, particularly with regard to becoming a more effective negotiator. Rediscover this classic – or get to know it for the first time – when preparing for your next negotiation. Here, my take on the seven habits from a negotiator’s perspective:

  1. Be proactive. This habit acknowledges that we are all responsible for our own actions. You need to keep your focus on the things you can control rather than focus on the negative and waste time worrying “what if [insert frightening scenario here] happens?” In a negotiation, the best way to be proactive is to prepare well before it begins. Gather as much information as you can. Brainstorm ways to create value. Know your BATNA. (Check out my recent post on preparing for a negotiation here.) If you’re not proactive, you’re playing the game according to someone else’s rules when you should be writing your own.
  2. Begin with the end in mind. Rather than script out your next negotiation in a reactive way – “if she says this, I’ll respond with this” – imagine yourself and your adversary at the end of the negotiation. What win-win scenario do you envision? Then work backward to see how you can achieve that result in reality. Hint: you’ll need to show your opponent that you understand and appreciate her point of view (empathy, not sympathy) to get her to open up.
  3. Put first things first. Covey’s time management matrix focuses on the four quadrants in which people divide their time: dealing with things that are (1) urgent and important, (2) not urgent but important, (3) urgent but not important, and (4) not urgent and not important. The theory is that people tend to spend the most time on urgent activities, even if they aren’t important (think: someone’s on the phone for you right now), at the expense of activities that are important but not urgent (think: long-term relationship building). The goal is to recognize and make time for what’s important, rather than simply live your life responding to fires that break out (and they always do). In the negotiation context, this means you need to see the big picture. It’s too easy to get sucked into spending valuable time hammering out unimportant details at the negotiation table just because someone brings them up and lose focus on why you’re there in the first place. Before you begin, make a list of what’s important in the discussion and what you need to prioritize. Refer to it during the discussion to stay on track.
  4. Think win/win. You’re not going to get too far in your negotiation if you’re entirely focused on “winning” at all costs. You are much more likely to reach a workable resolution if you and your adversary are both working toward a win-win goal, even if you both have different ideas of how to get there. Again, you must demonstrate empathy when hearing out the other side (you are hearing out the other side, right?) if you want to end up with a solution you can both live with. Think collaboration, not dominance.
  5. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. This habit is perhaps the most vital to a negotiation. You need to actively listen to your opponent, but it doesn’t end there – you must listen to understand (“okay, now I know why he’s asking for that…perhaps we could resolve it this way”), not simply to respond (“I can’t believe he said that…I’m going to say this to prove him wrong”). Once again, it comes back to understanding and empathy. When your adversary believes you understand what’s driving him, he’ll be more open to seeing things your way.
  6. Synergize: Covey emphasizes that collaboration always produces a more complete result. Avoid the lowest communication levels – legalese, protectiveness – and strive for “synergistic” win-win communication. It all goes back to connecting with your adversary on a personal level and finding solutions, not “winning.”
  7. Sharpen the saw. This habit focuses on your own well-being – physical, social, mental, and spiritual. Take care of yourself and always be open to learning. It’s the only way you’ll keep moving – in a negotiation and in life.

Employer’s Guide to Avoiding Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Posted: December 12th, 2017

By Christine Malafi

Given the recent headlines, all employers should be reminded that they have a legal duty to maintain a workplace that is free from sexual harassment. Sexual harassment suits are prosecuted under the same federal and state laws that are used to sue employers for racial discrimination and harassment, so it is critical that every employer take this form of sexual discrimination seriously. As we have seen, employers have paid a high price for failing to address sexual harassment complaints adequately.

What is sexual harassment?

The New York State Division of Human Rights defines sexual harassment as a “hostile environment” consisting of words, signs, jokes, pranks, intimidation, or physical violence which are of a sexual nature, or which are directed at an individual because of that individual’s sex. This will also consist of any unwanted verbal or physical advances which are offensive or objectionable to the recipient.

Another type of sexual harassment is known as “quid pro quo,” where a person in authority, such as a supervisor, attempts to trade job benefits (i.e. hiring, promotion, or continued employment) for sexual favors.

It takes only a single incident of inappropriate sexual behavior to serve as the basis of a sexual harassment claim.

What Should Employers Do?

Employers can take several steps to reduce the risk of sexual harassment in the workplace, including:

  • Sexual Harassment Policy: Have an employee handbook that sets forth a policy defining sexual harassment and the consequences of engaging in such conduct. This policy should also set out a procedure for filing sexual harassment complaints, and state that each complaint will be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, and also make it clear that retaliation is unlawful. An employer is not allowed to retaliate against an employee who has filed a sexual harassment complaint, whether or not that complaint is ultimately founded.
  • Train Employees: Employers should hold training sessions for both managers/supervisors and employees to teach them what sexual harassment is and what conduct is acceptable and not. The training should also review complaint procedures, and remind employees that they are entitled to have a workplace free of sexual harassment. Training is highly recommended because your managers and employees should all be familiar with the law and what to do if such conduct should occur, and if you face a lawsuit, you will be able to show that you took the necessary steps to prevent harassment.
  • Monitor Your Workplace: Talk with your employees periodically and ask for their input on any issues that may be occurring inside the workplace. Look around to see if there are any offensive posters or notes that may raise concern. Make your employees aware that the lines of communication are always open.

Sexual harassment has no boundaries, and can occur in any business, and to a male or female. Training and prevention are critical to eliminate these issues to the extent possible. Employers are encouraged to take these necessary steps to eliminate sexual harassment.

Legislative Efforts

In early December, Assemblywoman Sandy Galef (Westchester) introduced a bill that would have the New York State Division of Human Rights develop and implement a uniform sexual harassment policy that would apply to employees of State agencies, offices, departments, and members and employees of the State Assembly and Senate. The policy would create a standard procedure for the handling of sexual harassment complaints and investigation. The future of this bill, and any other new legislation that may come out of this national moment of reckoning regarding sexual harassment, remains to be seen.

For guidance on employee handbooks, policies, and procedures to create a safe workplace, please contact us.

The Continuing Evolution of Personal Jurisdiction in New York Over an Out-of-State Defendant

Posted: December 12th, 2017

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

One of the more challenging and ever-evolving issues that we continue to see is determining what is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction in New York State over an individual or business that resides or does business out of state. If you are dealing with real property in New York, a tort that occurred in New York, or a defendant who resides in or regularly does business in New York, jurisdiction is easily exercised.  The issue arises when the defendant you are seeking to sue in New York has few or no ties to the state.  In such cases, courts go through a very fact-specific analysis to determine whether the defendant has sufficient contacts within New York to avail itself of jurisdiction here.

A recent Suffolk County Commercial Division decision from Justice Emerson in Katherine Sales & Sourcing, Inc. v. Fiorella provides a great snapshot of what courts will consider when determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state defendant.  This derivative action centered on the plaintiff’s claims that defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud a company they jointly owned, Zingarr Sales and Marketing, by submitting fraudulent and inflated bills for services rendered to Zingarr and diverted contracts to a business separately owned by defendants, TGG Direct.

The rundown on the confusing cast of characters in this case: the plaintiff, Katherine Sales and Sourcing, is a New York corporation that owned a 50% interest in one of the nominal defendants, Zingarr, a New Jersey limited liability company that is authorized to do business in New York.  Zingarr is in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling consumer goods to retail stores, online retailers and wholesalers and has offices in both New Jersey and New York. The other 50% owner of Zingarr is another nominal defendant, Emily Gottschalk, who also owns and manages a third nominal defendant, TGG, a New Jersey limited liability company with offices in New Jersey. Gottschalk and non-party Arthur Danzinger are co-managers of Zingarr.  Danzinger is also the president and a shareholder of Katherine Sales.  Gottschalk’s office is in New Jersey, while Danzinger’s is in New York. Defendant Robert Fiorella is a resident of California, where he maintains an office.  So, in summary, we have a New York plaintiff, nominal defendants in New York and New Jersey, and a defendant who resides in and has an office solely in California.  Fiorella made a motion to dismiss the case against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Fiorella was hired by Zingarr at Gottschalk’s request to perform certain consulting services for Zingarr over a period of seven months in 2014.  Fiorella performed all services in California, and never came to New York.

In her decision, Justice Emerson first noted that CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that the court can exercise jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary who transacts any business in New York if the plaintiff’s claims arise from the transaction of such business.  Opticare Acquisition Corp. v. Castillo, 25 A.D.3d 238, 243 (2d Dep’t 2005).  A single act of business in New York has been held to be sufficient under certain circumstances when the business activities in New York were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted.  Id.  While being physically present in New York when a contract is agreed to is generally sufficient to confer jurisdiction, courts will likely not exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident when the contract was negotiated solely by mail, phone, or fax without any New York presence by the out-of-state defendant.  Patel v. Patel, 497 F.Supp. 2d 419, 428 (E.D.N.Y. 2007).  

The court found that although Fiorella had an ongoing relationship with Gottschalk and Zingarr, he never entered New York to negotiate their consulting arrangement, to perform under that consulting arrangement, or for any reason related to his relationship with Gottschalk and Zingarr.  Fiorella’s only actual contacts with New York that directly related to the consulting services were through telephone calls and emails with Danzinger, which the Court found were incidental to the work Fiorella was performing for Gottschalk.  Indeed, Fiorella’s primary business relationship was with Gottschalk, who was located in New Jersey.  The Court also factored in that the calls and emails from Danzinger were initiated by Danzinger and Fiorella was merely responding, thus not actively and purposely availing himself to New York activities.  Fiorella also sent two of the products at issue to Danzinger in New York but, again, these were sent at Danzinger’s request and, as such, the court held that Fiorella was not purposely availing himself to New York.

The court went on to consider the other options to exercise jurisdiction over Fiorella under CPLR 302(a)(2) and (3), but found that the plaintiff could not establish that Fiorella committed a tortious act in New York nor could plaintiff establish that it has sustained any injury other than a financial loss in New York.

Based on this analysis, the court dismissed the Complaint against Fiorella for lack of jurisdiction.  While there is no concrete standard for analyzing the sufficiency of an out-of-state defendant’s contacts with New York, this decision further amplifies the importance of evaluating how you are going to obtain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant before you commence the lawsuit. If you are the plaintiff, it is critically important to know in advance whether the out-of-state defendant does any business in New York, has an office in New York, negotiated an agreement at issue in New York, held meetings in New York, performed services in New York, regularly communicated with individuals in New York, and so on.  As seen in this case, if you are unable to establish a New York presence for an out-of-state defendant, your case could be over before it begins.

Can You Control What Happens to Your Remains After You Die?

Posted: December 12th, 2017

By: Martin Glass, Esq. email

Tags: ,

The answer is “sort of.”  How’s that for an attorney’s response?   I say that because you can’t really control anything from the grave.  The best that you can do is try to pre-plan.

There are a couple of things that you can do.  The first is to actually do a pre-plan or a pre-need, as they call it in the funeral business.  This means you actually go to a funeral home, tell them what you want, and pay for it.  You tell them everything from what kind of casket you want (or don’t want) to how many limos there should be.

Now that doesn’t mean that when the time comes, someone can’t add to what you planned, but it’s unlikely.  Anyone doing that would have to pay out of his or her own pocket and not the estate.  And if you make the plan irrevocable, they don’t get the money back if they try to cheap out and downgrade.

The pre-plan is good for pretty much any funeral home in the state.  Even though you go to a particular one to make the arrangements, it’s easily transferable to another since the money is actually held by a trust company, not the individual home.

Another thing that you can do to preplan is to talk to the person who will probably be in charge of taking care of your last remains.  Tell them what you want or don’t want.  Some people want their funeral to be lavish with a big send-off whereas others want to keep it quiet and simple.

As far as who is truly in charge, funeral homes have a pecking order of who they listen to for instructions.  The spouse is first, followed by children and then siblings.  The problem comes in as to the order within a particular class of people (for example, the decedent’s four children).  I once asked a funeral director who they listen to within a class and the basic answer was, “he who yells the loudest” because it really doesn’t matter to them at that point.

He who holds the purse strings is irrelevant.  I was told of a situation in which a childless widow died and had appointed her nephew (an attorney) as the executor.  He was asked to leave the funeral director’s office as the decedent’s siblings decided on the arrangements.  The nephew was there only to write the check, not make any decisions on the arrangements.

If you think you may be in a situation where your children or siblings will not agree on the arrangements, there is something else you can do.  In New York you can legally appoint an agent who will control the disposition of your remains.  You can even find a form for it on the NYS Department of Health website.

You can appoint anyone you want.  It can be one of your children or someone outside the family.  And you can appoint a successor to the agent.  The important thing is that you talk to your agent and make sure that he or she knows your wishes.  The agent can even work with a pre-plan arrangement that you’ve done with a funeral home.  Again, just make sure your agent knows about it.

The bottom line is that you need to discuss your wishes with the people who will be there to make the decisions.  After that, the only thing you can do is hope they will actually abide by your wishes.

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.