Alerts

On October 20, 2026, the First Department upheld New York City’s pandemic-era “Guaranty Law” (New York City Administrative Code § 22-1005). The 4-1 ruling reversed a decision declaring the law unconstitutional, marking a significant setback for commercial landlords pursuing individual guarantors. The case is 513 W. 26th Realty LLC v. George Billis Galleries, Inc., Case No. 2025-00996. A copy of the decision is available here.

A recent decision out of Supreme Court, Westchester County, offers a useful reminder to taxing authorities: a pre-answer motion to dismiss is not the proper vehicle for arguing that a tax assessment determination was correct on the merits. In Matter of Shewan Trust v. Assessor of the Town of Greenburgh, 90 Misc.3d 1207(A) (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty.), the court denied motions to dismiss brought by both the Town of Greenburgh respondents and Westchester County, underscoring the limited scope of CPLR § 3211 motions in the context of Article 78 proceedings challenging Small Claims Assessment Review (“SCAR”) determinations.

In July 2023, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) implemented a new National Emphasis Program on Warehousing and Distribution Centers (“NEP”), designated as Compliance Directive CPL-03-00-26. As discussed in a prior Alert, that NEP’s inspection program primarily targeted hazards commonly encountered in warehouses, distribution centers, mail and postal processing centers, parcel delivery and courier services, and certain high injury rate retail establishments (e.g., home centers, hardware stores, supermarkets, and warehouse clubs and supercenters). It also directed consideration of heat and ergonomic hazards in those environments.

With the general elections just around the corner, many tax-exempt organizations – from public charities to trade associations to corporate PACs – are asking the same question: How much political activity can we engage in before we put our tax-exempt status at risk?

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department has held that Cannabis Law § 131(2) expressly occupies the field of licensed adult-use dispensary operations, and that a town may not stretch the statutory 500-foot buffer between dispensaries and schools. But the bigger question, whether the NY Cannabis Control Board’s (CCB) Regulations at 9 NYCRR Part 119 confine municipalities to a closed list of “time, place and manner” controls, is still being litigated and is pending right now in Riverhead, Southampton, Babylon and Brookhaven, and in a joint suit by three towns against the State. Until the appellate court rules on that question, operators, landlords and municipalities should expect siting disputes to be decided case by case, provision by provision.

On October 5, 2026, two Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) at the New York Department of Public Service recommended that the Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission (“ORES”) deny a siting permit for the Shepherd’s Run Solar Farm (“Shepherd’s Run”) in the Town of Copake. In their Hearing Report and Recommended Decision (“Hearing Report/RD”), the ALJs found that the applicant, Hecate Energy Columbia County 1 (“Hecate”), failed to demonstrate compliance with New York’s wetlands laws, and that the record does not support compliance with Chapter 135 of Copake’s Town Code, which governs flood damage prevention. The recommendation is not final: the ORES Executive Director (“Director”) must act on the permit by October 19, 2026. Even so, the Hearing Report/RD is a useful illustration of how the Article VIII siting process weighs renewable energy development against state and local environmental protections.

Since the fall of 2024, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has released a continuing stream of press releases across the country describing settlements it reached with Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) borrowers to resolve allegations that these borrowers, many with foreign parents or affiliates, violated the False Claims Act by obtaining PPP loans for which they were ineligible due to employee headcount limitations. While some of these press releases involve First Draw loans, the vast majority involve Second Draw loans. And, importantly, these settlements generally involve loans where the borrower applied for and utilized the PPP funds for payroll and other forgivable expenses, and the SBA already granted forgiveness of the loans.

Many country clubs, university clubs, and social clubs operate restaurant, bar, and catering facilities as part of their operations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these clubs suffered from the same government shutdowns, social distancing requirements, financial strains, and other economic uncertainties as other businesses, including traditional restaurants and bars. A number of clubs, both for profit and not-for-profit, turned to Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans for payroll and economic support, as did a wide array of businesses across the entire spectrum of the United States economy. As borrowers, they applied for and received PPP monies, used those funds for payroll and other proper expenses, and later received forgiveness. Now, years later, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are revisiting those PPP loans, asserting that some clubs were ineligible for PPP loans in the first place, and demanding repayment to the SBA for its losses. Or, worse yet, the DOJ asserts that the clubs may be liable under the False Claims Act for making false certifications of eligibility or forgiveness on their applications.

The U.S. Supreme Court on September 25, 2026, issued a per curiam order granting the Government’s application to stay a district court injunction that had blocked the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (“SAVE”) program. Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters, No. 26A308 (Sept. 25, 2026). The stay allows the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to resume using the modified SAVE program, which links Social Security Administration (“SSA”) records to citizenship verification requests from state and local election officials, while litigation over the program continues.

As artificial intelligence tools become ubiquitous in legal practice, courts are grappling with novel questions about the discoverability of AI-generated materials and the ethical obligations of attorneys and litigants who rely on these tools. A wave of recent decisions in both state and federal courts has begun to clarify the legal landscape, but significant uncertainty—and risk—remains. This alert surveys the key developments.

Matter of WesCare Transportation, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board

On August 31, 2026, the Albany County Supreme Court (Graff, J.) annulled the Cannabis Control Board’s denial of a Public Convenience and Advantage (“PCA”) proximity waiver sought by WesCare Transportation, LLC, a Conditional Adult Use Retail Dispensary (“CAURD”) provisional licensee, and, with it, the Board’s resulting denial of WesCare’s entire dispensary license. Matter of WesCare Transportation, LLC v. NYS Cannabis Control Board, Index No. 911391-25.

Yesterday, on September 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important order which confirms that the United States Postal Service’s recent rules regarding mail-in ballots cannot be used for the upcoming 2026 election. The order denied the Government’s request to stay the preliminary injunction, which had been issued by the District Court and upheld by the First Circuit. We reported on the injunction and the anticipated Supreme Court decision in our September 14, 2026, alert. The Supreme Court’s order means the USPS Final Rule will not be in effect for the 2026 midterm elections, which are now less than 50 days away. 

Since our August 2026 election law alert reporting that the Supreme Court had stayed the District Court’s injunction against Executive Order 14399 on standing and ripeness grounds, holding that the plaintiff states’ challenge to Section 3 of the Executive Order was not yet ripe because no final USPS rule had been issued, the litigation has moved with extraordinary speed. The Supreme Court was explicit that its ruling “does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.” That final rule arrived days later. Despite the then-existing injunction, USPS issued its Final Rule on the evening of Friday, August 21, 2026. Two federal courts have now blocked it. The Trump Administration is expected to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Here is what happened, what it means, and what comes next.

Selection of comparable sales is one of the most heavily litigated elements of any real property tax assessment or eminent domain challenge that relies on the sales comparison approach. A recurring mistake, recently addressed by the Second Department in Matter of Goldiron Farming, LLC v. Town of Stanford, 249 A.D.3d 876 (2d Dep’t 2026), is treating a distinguishing feature of the subject property as grounds to exclude an otherwise comparable sale from the data set altogether. The court’s decision confirmed the correct approach is not exclusion but adjustment: an appraiser should identify sales that are genuinely comparable in their relevant market and then adjust each one, up or down, for material differences between it and the subject property. Narrowing the pool of comparables to only those sharing a specific attribute of the subject, in this case, qualifying for a narrow tax exemption, risks distorting the analysis and undermining the appraisal’s reliability.

In a recent decision, the Albany County Supreme Court vacated the Cannabis Control Board's (“Board”) denial of a public convenience and advantage (“PCA”) waiver, finding that the record and written determination did not adequately explain the basis for the decision. In Matter of Sonz of Cannabis Control Board, Index No. 912009-25 (Sup. Ct., Albany County, Aug. 11, 2026) (Savona, A.S.C.J.), the court provided additional guidance on the level of analysis and documentation the Board may need to provide to enable applicants and reviewing courts to understand the rationale for its determinations.

On August 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted summary judgment to two groups of plaintiffs challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, holding that the Act is preempted by federal law. The decision relies principally on the Second Circuit’s ruling in City of New York v. Chevron Corp., 993 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2021), which held that New York City could not pursue state-law claims seeking damages from fossil-fuel producers for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse gas emissions.

On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts which enjoined the federal government from implementing President Trump’s recent order regarding mail-in ballots. The decision was issued per curiam with three dissents and, collectively, consists of 37 pages. The decision has been widely, and confusingly, reported in the press. This alert explains the decision and clarifies what the Supreme Court has, and has not, ruled.

On August 18, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously denied a multi-industry challenge to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") rule designating perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") — two of the most widely studied "forever chemicals" — as "hazardous substances" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA" or "Superfund"). Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026). The decision leaves EPA's designation fully in place and confirms that Superfund's strict liability cleanup and cost recovery regime now applies to these two chemicals.

A key element of New York’s data center moratorium was a direction to Empire State Development (“ESD”) to craft a Community Investment Framework (“CIF”) under which data center host communities would be compensated. Public feedback on the Framework can be submitted to ESD by Thursday, August 13, 2026.

As early as June 2020, our “Borrower Beware” alerts began warning borrowers about the risks associated with false certifications on Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan applications and potential after-the-fact government scrutiny of such loans under the False Claims Act, which is often spurred by whistleblowers.

New York courts have long recognized that public utility infrastructure must be considered under different variance standards given that regional and state needs for such infrastructure outweigh purely local considerations.  Under the Public Utility Variance (“PUV”) standard that the New York Court of Appeals established in Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598 (1978), where a proposed facility demonstrates that it is a public necessity required to render safe and adequate service, that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct the project where proposed than an alternative, and where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the required showing is correspondingly reduced.  See generally Hoffman.  See also our earlier alert on the PUV standard.

In a move with significant implications for data center developers and potential host communities throughout New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has signed Executive Order No. 62, temporarily pausing certain state environmental approvals for large-scale data center projects while state agencies evaluate the industry's environmental, energy, and infrastructure impacts. This makes New York the first state in the country with a statewide data center permitting moratorium. The Order applies to data centers that consume 50 megawatts (“MW”) of energy or more and comes just one month after a similar moratorium was passed by the State Legislature.

New York’s proposed Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprise (“MWBE”) amendments affect certification requirements, expand “commercially useful function” (“CUF”), and impact utilization credits. This alert summarizes the MWBE amendments’ practical implications.

Senator Baskin, the primary sponsor, shared with Hodgson Russ that the amendments will ensure “no more pausing people's MWBE status while they are under review for recertification compliance.”

Following up on our June 16 alert, “New York Piggybacking Provision Extension Advances to Governor’s Desk,” the piggybacking extension advanced by Legislative Bill S.10075-A/A.11162-A has officially been signed into law by Governor Hochul as of June 29, 2026. The new law ensures that piggybacking will remain a permissible alternative to the public bidding process for another year. This latest extension will expire on June 30, 2027.

Decisions from the United States Supreme Court related to Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) are not abundant by any means. As courts throughout the country have noted, “[b]ankruptcy is a specialized area of the law.” Because “[b]ankruptcy courts are specialized courts,” it is not beyond reason that great deference is given to their decisions and interpretations of the Bankruptcy Code; thus obviating frequent resort to review by America’s highest court. Notwithstanding, the historical landscape of bankruptcy law is pockmarked with landmark decisions of the Supreme Court that, among other things, settle circuit splits or define the outer limits of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and authority.

On May 13, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a nationwide moratorium on Home Health Agencies and Hospices enrolled in the Medicare program. This moratorium is substantially similar to CMS’s recent nationwide moratorium that went into effect on February 27, 2026, regarding new Medicare enrollments for Durable Medical Equipment suppliers (“DME Suppliers”). According to CMS, both moratoria were implemented to curtail fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program among these providers and suppliers (collectively, “Providers”).

New York’s General Municipal Law § 103(16) currently permits various New York State agencies, municipalities, political subdivisions, and districts to engage in “piggybacking” as an alternative and more efficient method of procurement compared to the traditional public bidding process. When the State Legislature initially passed the amendment to the General Municipal Law to permit piggybacking, the change was not a permanent one. The Legislature included a sunset provision to repeal the piggybacking clauses after being in effect for five years. Since then, municipalities, school districts, and other government agencies have acknowledged the positive impact that piggybacking has had on project efficiency and cost control, and the State Legislature to this point has worked to keep the law in effect. The initial repeal date has been amended several times, and the current extension is set to expire on June 30, 2026. Legislative Bills S.10075-A/A.11162-A aim to extend the piggybacking provision of the General Municipal Law for an additional year, to June 30, 2027. Among other things, the bill summary recites that “Piggybacking has been proven to reduce the administrative costs and burdens for localities and the costs related to goods and services; resulting in savings to the governmental entities that utilize cooperative purchasing.” The Bill recently passed both chambers of the Legislature and currently awaits Governor Hochul’s pen

New York's 2026-27 Budget Bill (the “Budget Bill”) amends the Tax Law and various other statutes through a series of Parts (here, A through JJ). The Budget Bill touches a range of personal and business tax provisions, extends several expiring credits and temporary rate increases, introduces new compliance and enforcement mechanisms, and adds a significant new levy on certain New York City real property – the “Pied-à-terre Tax.”

New York’s General Municipal Law § 103(1) generally requires that all contracts for public works over $35,000, and all purchase contracts worth more than $20,000, are subject to the competitive bidding process, and such contracts must either be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or on the basis of best value. In 2012, the statute was amended to authorize the state, municipalities, political subdivisions, and districts to engage in a new method of procurement—often referred to as “piggybacking”—without engaging in traditional public bidding. “Piggybacking” is a process by which one governmental entity is permitted to purchase or procure the same goods and services at the same contractual pricing, terms, and conditions as another government entity, the latter of which has already competitively bid the contract. Proper use of piggybacking can potentially result in significant savings and efficiencies, and by extension, benefit the public taxpayers by streamlining the process, reducing administrative costs, and providing access to a broader vendor pool than having each government entity conduct its own individualized and localized public bidding for the same type of procurement.

On Friday, May 22, 2026, USCIS issued a new policy memo on Adjustments of Status (the process whereby a temporary work visa holder becomes a green card holder in the U.S.). 

Significant revisions incorporating environmental justice and housing considerations represent the most consequential reshaping of SEQRA in years.

The deadline for DEC to appeal the Albany County Supreme Court’s decision has now passed without DEC filing a notice of appeal. As a result, the Court’s annulment of the new Part 664 regulations remains in effect. Although the underlying 2022 amendments to the Freshwater Wetlands Act remain valid, the implementing regulations adopted by DEC effective January 1, 2025, are no longer operative.

Albany County Supreme Court finds DEC failed to comply with SEQRA in adopting new wetlands rules

In a decision with significant consequences for landowners, developers, and municipalities throughout New York State, the Albany County Supreme Court has annulled in their entirety the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC’s”) recently promulgated Part 664 freshwater wetlands regulations, holding that the DEC failed to satisfy its obligations under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”).

On February 13, 2026, Governor Hochul signed an amendment to New York’s “Trapped at Work Act.” Employers should review their policies and agreements to ensure compliance prior to the new effective date.

There has been an increasing number of new businesses in New York offering various cosmetology services, including Botox, fillers, and other cosmetic injectable services. These businesses are informally referred to within the cosmetics industry as “medical spas” or more formally referred to by the New York Department of State (“NYDOS”) as “appearance enhancement businesses.” Coincidentally, consumers have also filed numerous complaints regarding these businesses to various government agencies over the past few years. This led to government-initiated inspections of over 200 “appearance enhancement businesses” last year. In January 2026, the NYDOS’s Division of Licensing and Consumer Protection (“Division of Licensing”) issued a Warning to notify consumers about the investigation results and the potential harms related to these types of businesses. This Warning also has important implications for the healthcare industry and healthcare professionals, as summarized below.

By April 30th, owners of single electric-generating facilities or multiple electric-generating facilities located on the same New York site with a nameplate capacity of one megawatt or greater must file an Annual Report, formally known as Form RP-575, with the State Department of Taxation and Finance Office of Real Property Tax Services (“ORPTS”). This requirement, enacted in 2020 by Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”) § 575-a, was designed to provide confidential information that ORPTS could use to inform the RPTL § 575-b tax assessment model.

New York State has some of the most complex and unforgiving deadlines for election-related submissions. Missing a deadline, even by a single day, can result in removal from the ballot, disqualification of an entire petition, objections being rejected, and possible other consequences under the law, including financial penalties. With the current election cycle underway, candidates, party committees, and their counsel must act now to comply with these deadlines and achieve critical milestones during the election calendar. 

After several years and iterations of the solar and wind assessment model under Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”) § 575-b, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance’s 2026 draft assessment model (the “2026 Draft Model”) includes a new category for solar + storage. While some in the solar industry sought to include solar + storage in the assessment model to bring further uniformity and predictability for solar + storage projects, this addition raises a question about whether including hybrid solar + storage projects is consistent with RPTL § 575-b. As discussed below, RPTL § 575-b refers to the definition of solar or wind energy systems in RPTL § 487, and this definition includes energy storage devices. Thus, the inclusion of solar + storage is consistent with the statutory framework. It remains to be seen whether the 2026 Draft Model, if finalized to include solar + storage, will be challenged on this ground or any others. We will separately report on the updates to the 2026 Draft Model as it concerns discount rates, use, and functionality. 

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (“DOTF”) released the draft 2026 solar and wind valuation model and updated discount rates (the “Draft 2026 Model”) for public review and comment. Under Real Property Tax Law § 575-b, these discounted cash flow models are mandatory for local assessment of wind and solar energy systems over 1 megawatt AC. 

Last week, the Appellate Division, Third Department reaffirmed and further limited the application of New York’s Green Amendment. This follows the Appellate Division, Fourth Department’s decision last year in Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. State of New York , which held that the state constitutional amendment does not create a private right of action against private actors. In Fresh Air for the Eastside, the Fourth Department also rejected arguments that the Amendment altered the longstanding rule that mandamus does not lie to compel an enforcement agency to pursue alleged violators, except in rare circumstances. The Third Department rejected the argument that the Green Amendment compelled the State to revoke an industrial facility’s permits and affirmed the lower court’s holding that the Green Amendment did not create a cause of action to compel enforcement action by the State.

Hodgson Russ State & Local Tax Partner Craig Reilly recently secured a favorable declaratory judgment ruling on behalf of a group of licensed site safety service providers operating in accordance with the New York City Building Code. The declaratory judgment ruling by the Albany Supreme Court confirmed that section 1105 of the New York State Tax Law is wholly inapplicable to these licensed site safety services, which involve coordinators or managers who monitor construction sites in New York City and advise contractors on whether they are complying with the New York City Building Code.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has launched a new online portal to streamline reporting of foreign ownership interests in U.S. agricultural land under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA).

After years of delays in implementation, New York State recently opened registration for the Secure Choice Savings Program (“SCSP”), which creates new retirement savings requirements for certain employers with New York employees. Despite the rollout of official guidance, some questions remain concerning how the program will operate.

Beginning March 18, 2026, directors and officers of foreign private issuers, or FPIs, must report their beneficial ownership of, and their transactions involving, an FPI’s securities under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, became law on December 18, 2025.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, seeking public comments to clarify the filing requirements under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Improvements Act (AFIDA).

On December 8, 2025, the New York City Department of Buildings issued Buildings Bulletin 2025-014, providing long-awaited clarification on how battery energy storage systems, including retail and off-site systems, may generate greenhouse gas emissions deductions for Covered Buildings under Local Law 97.

For renewable energy project developers with projects in New York City, January 5 is an especially important date because it is the City’s “Taxable Status Date” (unlike many towns that operate under a March 1 deadline).  This deadline controls when developers must submit their tax exemption application (RP-487) to obtain the benefit of New York’s renewable energy facility tax exemption under Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”) § 487.  Although state law (RPTL § 302(1)) sets March 1 as the taxable status date, New York City Charter § 1507 overrides that provision and sets January 5 as the taxable status date.

A mandatory real property tax exemption in New York is provided by Real Property Law § 420-a(1)(a) for property meeting a two-prong test: first, if owned by an organization formed for “religious, charitable, hospital, educational, or moral or mental improvement of men, women or children purposes,” and second, if used exclusively for carrying out such purposes. 

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation resolving the latest attack on the solar and wind real property tax assessment model.  The legislation, Senate Bill S.8012 (Assembly Bill A.8332) (the “Legislation”), is in direct response to the Airey, et al. v. State of New York, et al., Index No. 903991-24, case in Albany County Supreme Court (the “Challenge”).  The Court in Airey held the assessment model under Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”) § 575-b (the “Model”) unconstitutional (the “Decision”).  We previously reported on the Decision in our alert on March 5, 2025.

Solar projects are governed by the Public Utility Variance (“PUV”) standard that the New York Court of Appeals announced in Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598 (1978). Under this test, where a proposed facility demonstrates that it is a public necessity required to render safe and adequate service, that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise, which make it more feasible to construct the project where proposed than an alternative, and where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the required showing is correspondingly reduced.

On November 7, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC” or the “Department”) issued a Water-Quality Certification under the Clean Water Act, along with related permits, for the Northeast Supply Enhancement (“NESE”) natural gas pipeline proposal. This decision marks a potential sea change in New York’s energy infrastructure permitting landscape – one that may signal a longer horizon for the State’s transition to a carbon-free energy future, as embodied in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act ("CLCPA").