Hill Wallack LLP Firm News/Blogs Feedhttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10en-us21 Jan 2022firmwisehttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssNew Law Favorably Impacts the Rights of Community Associations in Transitionhttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=120245&format=xml&p=530919 Jan 2022Client Alert<img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/George_GreatrexJr_01292020.JPG" hspace="10" vspace="25" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="215" height="308" /> <p>Written by: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/george-c-greatrex-jr">George Greatrex, Jr., Esq.</a></p> <p>Governor Murphy just signed into law an important bill that directly impacts the rights of community associations in the developer transition process in New Jersey. We are pleased to report on this new law as it will benefit our common interest community clients going forward, especially those in the developer transition process, and in that regard we commend the CAI Legislative Action Committee-NJ for their efforts to initiate, support and advance this bill into law.</p> <div> <p>Public Law 2021 c.379 (A4903/S396) adjusts the Statute of Limitations on damage claims for construction defects in common interest communities in New Jersey. This is extremely important for newer common interest communities which are either in the process of transitioning control of their association from the developer/declarant to the homeowners, or have recently completed that transition. The Statute of Limitations in this context is a law that requires a common interest community to file a damages lawsuit against a developer, builder or subcontractor for any design or construction defects within a certain time period from the date the damages were discovered or should have been discovered, or lose the legal right to do so. For many years until the NJ Supreme Court&rsquo;s 2017 opinion in a case entitled <u>Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association v. 100 Old Palisade LLC</u>, the applicable time period (the &ldquo;limitations period&rdquo;) did not begin to run until the time the damages were discovered or should have been discovered, or the date on which the homeowners took control of the association&rsquo;s executive board by way of election,&nbsp;<b>which ever occurred later</b>. The Court&rsquo;s opinion drastically changed that starting date, ruling that the limitations period began to run as soon as the damages were discovered or should have been discovered by the Association, regardless of whether or not the developer was still in control of the executive board. This ruling put associations at an extreme disadvantage in discovering and timely filing suit against the developer, the builder and/or the contractors if the developer still controlled the executive board.&nbsp; This new law reverses that portion of the Court&rsquo;s decision by restoring the previous law providing that the applicable limitations period does not begin to run until the date the damages were discovered or should have been discovered, or the date on which the homeowners took control of the association&rsquo;s executive board by way of election,&nbsp;<b>which ever occurred later</b>.</p> <p>If you have questions about how this new law (or any other laws) affects your community association, we invite you to contact any of the lawyers in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/community-associations">Community Associations Practice Group of Hill Wallack LLP</a>.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: smaller;">&copy;2022 Hill Wallack LLP. All rights reserved. Please contact Hill Wallack for permission to reprint. Notice: The purpose of this Client Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Client Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.</span></p> </div>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10New York Appellate Court Continues to Narrow 90 Day Notice Standardshttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=120208&format=xml&p=530914 Jan 2022Client Alert<img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Michael_Manniello_01102022.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="25" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="215" height="308" /><img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Eric_Kelner_09152020.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="25" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="215" height="308" /> <p><em>Written by: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/michael-c-manniello">Michael Manniello</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/eric-p-kelner">Eric Kelner</a></em>&nbsp;</p> <p>The defenses du jour in New York residential foreclosures are lack of standing, statute of limitations, and failure to comply with the New York statutory condition precedent mandated by NY RPAPL &sect;1304 (the 90 Day Notice). All three of these areas have been the subject of recent decisions from the Appellate Division, Second Department which covers the 10 downstate counties of Richmond (Staten Island), Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Duchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam &ndash; an area which includes one-half of the state&rsquo;s population. However, the Court has recently focused its attention on the mailing procedure and content of the 90 Day Notice.</p> <p>RPAPL &sect;1304 requires a mortgage loan servicer send a certain pre-foreclosure notice to &ldquo;<i>the borrower &hellip; in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice</i>&rdquo; at least 90 days prior to commencement of the foreclosure action. The statute provides, among other things, the exact language which the notice is to include and in what type point, and requires same be sent, registered or certified mail and also by first class mail, to the last known address of the borrower and to the mortgaged premises. The servicer must strictly comply with the statute &ndash; which means courts have little if no leeway to forgive any deviation from the statutory mandates. Failure to strictly comply results in a dismissal of the action.&nbsp;</p> <p>Trial and appellate courts have grappled with what constitutes strict compliance since soon after the statute was enacted in 2008, but the Second Dept. has been the most active in dismissing action after action applying what many would describe as hyper-technicalities.&nbsp;Each appeal is typically heard by a panel of five justices, but due to short staffing, the Court has been functioning with panels of only four justices.&nbsp;Its two most recent decisions in this area could be the most extreme and unsubstantiated application of strict compliance &ndash; so much so that each of the decisions included a very critical dissent from two separate justices.</p> <p>The first decision&nbsp;<i>Wells Fargo v. Yapkowitz</i>, 199 AD3d 126 (2<sup>nd</sup>&nbsp;Dept 2021) held that a 90 Day Notice jointly addressed (both on the notice and the envelope) to more than one recipient did not strictly comply with the statute.&nbsp;For example, a notice and envelope addressed to:</p> <p>John Smith<br /> Jane Smith<br /> 123 Main Street<br /> Anytown, NY 12345</p> <p>where 123 Main Street was the last known address (not the mortgaged premises) did not strictly comply with the statute. The Court reasoned that the 90 Day Notice was not sent separately to each borrower because it was jointly addressed and sustained the lower court&rsquo;s dismissal of the foreclosure action.&nbsp;This holding resolved a dispute among several trial courts &ndash; some finding such a notice sufficient and others not.<br /> <br /> The dissent set forth ten separate requirements of the statute with which the servicer complied and criticized the majority&rsquo;s reasoning that a separately addressed envelope is more likely to reach the addressee than one that is jointly addressed.&nbsp;Once the servicer mails the envelope it has no control over who retrieves the household&rsquo;s mail, whether the person retrieving the mail passes the notice onto the addressee, or if it is &ldquo;placed in a file, round or otherwise.&rdquo;</p> <p>On December 15, 2021, the Court issued its decision in&nbsp;<i>Bank of America v. Kessler</i>, ___ &nbsp;AD3d ___ ,N.Y. Slip Op. 06979 (2<sup>nd</sup>&nbsp;Dept 2021).&nbsp;In&nbsp;<i>Kessler</i>, the Court dealt with what constitutes &ldquo;<i>any other mailing or notice</i>&rdquo; which the statute prohibits from inclusion with the 90 Day Notice.&nbsp;As was the case in&nbsp;<i>Yapkowitz</i>, over the years trial courts have expressed differing views as what constituted an &ldquo;<i>other mailing or notice</i>.&rdquo; The items reviewed by the various trial courts included language pursuant to federal statute, language regarding a possible discharge in bankruptcy, language regarding the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and language advising the mortgagor that certain loss-mitigation options might be available &ndash; any of which provided some benefit to the recipient. The Court considered whether it mattered that the alleged non-complying language was actually part of the 90 Day Notice in a continuous paginated document or on separate sheets of paper placed after the form notice and found that it did not.&nbsp;The Court found that application of the &ldquo;strict compliance&rdquo; doctrine mandated a finding that including any of these additional notices, which in the Court&rsquo;s view could have very easily been sent in additional mailings separate from the 90 Day Notice, violated the statute and once again mandated dismissal of the foreclosure action.</p> <p>New York has two appellate levels, therefore under certain conditions these holdings could be the subject of further appeal.&nbsp;However, the present state of the law in the NY area covered by the Second Department (one half of the state&rsquo;s population) is that the 90 Day Notice, and only the 90 Day Notice, must be sent in a separate envelope, separately addressed to each borrower.&nbsp;Deviation from this, will most likely result in dismissal of the action.&nbsp;Such a dismissal is based on a failure to meet a condition precedent, and provided the action was commenced with the statute of limitation, the action can be recommenced under certain conditions without a statute of limitations issue.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> If you have questions, contact&nbsp;<a href="mailto:mmanniello@hillwallack.com">Michael Manniello</a>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<a href="mailto:ekelner@hillwallack.com">Eric Kelner</a>&nbsp;in the firm's&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/creditors-rightsbankruptcy">Creditors' Rights/Bankruptcy practice group</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="font-size: smaller;">&nbsp;</span> &nbsp; &nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-size: smaller;">&copy;2022 Hill Wallack LLP. All rights reserved. Please contact Hill Wallack for permission to reprint. Notice: The purpose of this Client Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Client Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.</span></p>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10New York Eviction Moratorium Set to End January 15, 2022 Will Not be Extendedhttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=120177&format=xml&p=530912 Jan 2022Client Alert<img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Michael_Manniello_01102022.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="20" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="215" height="308" /><img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Eric_Kelner_09152020.jpg" hspace="15" vspace="20" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="215" height="308" /> <p><em>Written by: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/michael-c-manniello">Michael Manniello</a> and <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/eric-p-kelner">Eric Kelner</a></em></p> <p>New York courts and local enforcement officers have processed little, if no, post foreclosure evictions since the COVID-19 pandemic began and a state of emergency took effect in March 2020. Throughout the state cases filed prior to March 2020, regardless of what stage they had reached, have been stayed by legislation, Executive Orders of the Governor, or Administrative Orders of the New York Chief Judge. Very few hearings or trials have been held since that time, and sheriffs and marshals have enforced few, if any, warrants issued pre-pandemic in such matters.</p> <p>Since March of 2020, several courts have implemented additional procedures intended to afford occupants various protections during the pandemic (i.e., additional notices advising occupants of help agencies and additional hearing stages). It seems many of those will continue for the foreseeable future making an already lengthy process that much more so, and individual judge&rsquo;s interpretation of the legislation, executive and administrative orders have been highly inconsistent.&nbsp;Many of the edicts have included catch-all provisions giving individual judges wide latitude to manage their cases as they see fit &ndash; resulting in even more protections for tenants and mortgagors alike and delaying adjudication even further.&nbsp;That should all change on January 15, 2022.</p> <p>Governor Hochul has confirmed that the tenant protections put in place by both legislation and executive orders will end on January 15, 2022.&nbsp;As it stands, on that date the now all too familiar &ldquo;hardship declaration&rdquo; which if filed by an occupant halted the eviction process will become a thing of the past. The current NY legislative session is set to end on January 13, 2022, and there is no pending legislation to extend the protections.&nbsp;The Governor&rsquo;s recent remarks are welcomed as a light, although faint and far, at the end of the tunnel.&nbsp;While no one expects any switch being flipped on January 15, 2022, evictions in New York should start to move for the first time in nearly two years.<br /> <br /> If you have questions, contact&nbsp;<a href="mailto:mmanniello@hillwallack.com">Michael Manniello</a>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<a href="mailto:ekelner@hillwallack.com">Eric Kelner</a>&nbsp;in the firm's&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/creditors-rightsbankruptcy">Creditors' Rights/Bankruptcy practice group</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: smaller;">&copy;2022 Hill Wallack LLP. All rights reserved. Please contact Hill Wallack for permission to reprint. Notice: The purpose of this Client Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Client Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.&nbsp;</span></p>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Governor Murphy Signs New Law Affecting Community Associationshttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=120157&format=xml&p=530911 Jan 2022Client Alert<img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/George_GreatrexJr_01292020.JPG" hspace="10" vspace="20" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="215" height="308" /> <p><em>Written by: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/george-c-greatrex-jr">George Greatrex, Jr.</a></em></p> <p>Governor Murphy just signed into law a bill that directly affects the rights, obligations and operations of common interest communities in New Jersey. We are pleased to report on this new law as it will benefit all our common interest community clients going forward, and in that regard we commend the CAI Legislative Action Committee-NJ for their efforts to support and advance this bill into law.</p> <p>Public Law 2021 c.362 (A5549/S4112) amends the NJ Nonprofit Corporation Act to authorize such entities (including community associations and condominium associations) to permit their members to attend membership meetings remotely by video conference or conference telephone call. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic a bill was signed into law that permitted such remote attendance at membership meetings, but only during a declared State of Emergency (Public Law 2020, c.20). This law extends that authorization to attend membership meetings remotely even in the absence of a declared State of Emergency. It is important to note that this new law does not automatically authorize an association to permit its members to attend membership meetings remotely. Rather, each association board must authorize and adopt guidelines and procedures governing how its members may attend their meetings remotely.</p> <p>If you have questions about how this new law (or any other laws) affect your community association, we invite you to contact any of the lawyers in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/community-associations">Community Associations Practice Group of Hill Wallack LLP</a>.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: smaller;">&copy;2022 Hill Wallack LLP. All rights reserved. Please contact Hill Wallack for permission to reprint. Notice: The purpose of this Client Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Client Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.&nbsp;</span></p>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Supti Bhattacharya has been appointed to the Supreme Court Special Committee on the Non-Dissolution/FD Dockethttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=120138&format=xml&p=531010 Jan 2022News Release<img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Supti_Bhattacharya_07172019.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="20" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="215" height="308" /> <p>Supti Bhattacharya, Partner-in-Charge of the Family Law Practice Group at Hill Wallack has been appointed to the Supreme Court Special Committee on the Non-Dissolution/FD Docket. The Committee is charged with reviewing operations, procedures, and protocols to enhance procedural fairness and eliminate the potential for systemic disparities in outcomes. The Committee is comprised of judges, Judiciary staff, members of the bar, and community service providers.&nbsp;</p> <p><a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/supti-bhattacharya">Supti Bhattacharya</a> practices exclusively in the areas of Family Law and Matrimonial Law, including: Divorce; Separation; Domestic Custody and International Custody; Child Support; Alimony; College Tuition and College Expense Contribution; Child Emancipation; Equitable Distribution of Assets; Domestic Violence; Pre-Nuptial Agreements; and Mid-Marriage Agreements.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Expiration of COVID-19 Immunity Lawhttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=120062&format=xml&p=530930 Dec 2021Client Alert<img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/George_GreatrexJr_01292020.JPG" hspace="10" vspace="20" align="left" alt="" border="0" width="205" height="298" /> <p>Written by: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/george-c-greatrex-jr">George Greatrex, Jr., Esq.</a><br /> <br /> The law providing immunity to common interest communities in New Jersey from COVID-19 civil damages is set to expire on January 1, 2022 (12:01am). Unfortunately, it appears that efforts to legislatively extend that immunity protection for another year have not been successful, therefore the law will likely expire in a few days as scheduled.</p> <p>In light of this, and also in light of the increasing rates of infection from the Omicron variant here in New Jersey and across the country, it is recommended that all common interest communities in New Jersey quickly discuss and decide whether to keep their amenities and recreational facilities open, and if so, what steps should be taken to address the uninsured exposure to civil claims stemming from exposure to the virus on Association property.</p> <p>If you have questions about this notice, please contact the lawyers in the <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/community-associations">Community Associations Practice Group</a>&nbsp;at Hill Wallack LLP.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: smaller;">&copy;2021 Hill Wallack LLP. All rights reserved. Please contact Hill Wallack for permission to reprint. Notice: The purpose of this Client Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Client Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.&nbsp;</span></p>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Cassi Martin and Jon Meyers Examine Impact of Supreme Court Decision in Lorino on Section 440/Unreasonable Contest Feeshttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=120026&format=xml&p=530928 Dec 2021Client Alert<img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Jonathan_Meyers_02222019.jpg" hspace="0" vspace="20" align="left" alt="" border="0" width="167" height="250" /><img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Cassi_Martin_09152015.jpg" hspace="15" vspace="20" align="left" alt="" border="0" width="167" height="250" /> <p>By: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/jonathan-c-meyers">Jonathan C. Meyers, Esq.</a> and <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/cassi-g-martin">Cassi G. Martin, Esq.</a></p> <p>In practice, if an employer established a reasonable contest during litigation of a workers&rsquo; compensation claim they would avoid the assessment of unreasonable contest fees. Now, according to <i>Lorino v. WCAB (Cmwlth. of Pa.),</i> decided December 22, 2021, the WCJ may award attorney&rsquo;s fees even if the employer&rsquo;s contest was reasonable.</p> <p>In <i>Lorino</i>, the claim had been accepted via a &ldquo;medical-only&rdquo; Notice of Compensation Payable.&nbsp;Since this was med-only case, Claimant&rsquo;s counsel was not collecting a fee. Employer filed a Termination Petition.&nbsp;The workers&rsquo; compensation judge denied the termination but held that Employer&rsquo;s contest was reasonable. Despite the finding of a reasonable contest, unreasonable contest fees were awarded. The Workers&rsquo; Compensation Appeal Board reversed the award of unreasonable contest fees, and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, holding that even when a reasonable basis for contest has been established, the judge may still award unreasonable contest attorney&rsquo;s fees when the Claimant prevails.</p> <p>In reaching its decision, the court relied on the plain reading of Section 440-of the Pennsylvania Workers&rsquo; Compensation Act. &rdquo;(U)nder Section 440, when a contested case is resolved in favor of an employee, a reasonable sum for attorney&rsquo;s fees shall be awarded to the claimant. Such an award is mandatory. Where, however, the employer has established a reasonable basis for the contest, an award of attorney&rsquo;s fees may be excluded. <b>In other words, the WCJ is permitted, but not required, to exclude an award of attorney&rsquo;s fees.&rdquo;</b>&nbsp; <i>Lorino v. WCAB (Cmwlth. of Pa.)</i>, 8 EAP 2021 (Pa. 12/22/2021)(emphasis added).</p> <p>This decision could have a significant impact on the litigation of future workers&rsquo; compensation claims in Pennsylvania. <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/workers-compensation">Hill Wallack&rsquo;s workers&rsquo; compensation group</a> has been helping Employers navigate workers&rsquo; compensation claims for more than twenty-five years. If you have questions about this case, or any other workers&rsquo; compensation issues, please do not hesitate to call us.</p> <p><span style="font-size: smaller;">&copy;2021 Hill Wallack LLP. All rights reserved. Please contact Hill Wallack for permission to reprint. Notice: The purpose of this Client Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Client Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.&nbsp;</span></p>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Hill Wallack partner Caroline Record to speak at the 2021 Community Association Law Summithttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=119504&format=xml&p=555517 Nov 2021Event<p><em>Presented in cooperation with NJSBA Real Property, Trust &amp; Estate Law Section and the Community Associations Institute, New Jersey Chapter (CAI-NJ)</em><strong><br /> <br /> Wednesday, November 17, 2021</strong><br /> 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM</p> <p><u><strong>LIVE WEBCAST</strong></u></p> <p><strong>Earn up to 6.7 credits, including 1.0 in Ethics!&nbsp;</strong></p> <img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Caroline_Record_07142015.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="0" align="left" alt="" border="0" width="166" height="250" /><strong><br /> </strong><u><strong>Overcoming Discrimination and Fostering Inclusion in Communities</strong></u> <p>Presented by: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/caroline-record">Caroline Record, Esq.</a>, CCAL</p> <p>Ms. Record will be joined by a panel of distinguished community association practitioners and consultants for a program that analyzes key issues faced today by community associations.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <h4><a href="https://tcms.njsba.com/PersonifyEbusiness/Default.aspx?TabID=1699&amp;productId=65640387">Learn more and register here</a>.&nbsp;</h4> <br /> <br /> <br type="_moz" /> <br />https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Jonathan C. Meyers speaking at the Pennsylvania Self-Insurers' Association Annual Meetinghttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=119462&format=xml&p=555515 Nov 2021Event<p><a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/jonathan-c-meyers"><br /> Jonathan C. Meyers</a> is a featured speaker at the Pennsylvania Self-Insurers&rsquo; Association Annual Meeting on November 15<sup>th</sup> at Seven Springs Mountain Resort in Champion, PA.</p> <img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Jonathan_Meyers_02222019.jpg" hspace="20" vspace="0" align="left" alt="" border="1" width="167" height="250" /> <p><br /> Mr. Meyers will be discussing Employee Advocacy &amp; Analytics Drive Award Winning Workers&rsquo; Compensation Results. He will be joined by co-panelists, John Madaus, Dr. Jack Perry, Brian Chance and Ted Fricker.</p> <p>Keynote speaker, Eric Giguere will kick off the Annual Meeting with &ldquo;The Buried Truth Uncovered&rdquo; a presentation that is sure to motivate and impress.<br /> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Other topics being covered at the Annual Meeting are:</p> <ul type="square"> <li style="text-align: left;">PSIA Annual Meeting and Legislative Update &nbsp;</li> <li>Bureau Update</li> <li>Early Symptom Intervention&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</li> <li>Medical Marijuana within Occupational Medicine &amp; Safety</li> </ul> <br /> <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-2021-psia-annual-meeting-tickets-89792847825">Learn more and register here</a>.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br type="_moz" />https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Caroline Record to Speak at CAI - Keystone Chapter NJ Regional Council Mini Trade Showhttps://www.hillwallack.com/?t=40&an=119384&format=xml&p=555510 Nov 2021Event<p><strong>Wednesday, November 10, 2021</strong><br /> 8:30 AM to 11:30 AM</p> <p>Riverside Ballroom at the Crowne Plaza<br /> 2349 West Marlton Pike, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002</p> <br /> <img src="https://www.hillwallack.com/D444E6/assets/images/Attorneys/Caroline_Record_07142015.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="0" align="left" alt="" border="0" width="166" height="250" /><strong>Get Plugged In &ndash; Legal, Design, and Managerial Requirements for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations</strong> <p>Presented by: <a href="https://www.hillwallack.com/caroline-record">Caroline Record, Esq.</a>, Georgette Kyriacou, FWH Associates; and Lisa Rayca, CMCA, AMS, Corner Property Management</p> <p>With electric vehicles gaining in popularity, more community residents and buyers are adding adequate vehicle charging capacity to their list of must-have amenities. In order to both meet the needs of current owners and the expectations of prospective owners, boards need to get informed about how EVCSs work, what's involved in establishing and maintaining them in their communities, and how getting on board the electric train now will make their building or association that much more attractive. Join this expert panel for a discussion of all this and more - including legal and design and managerial requirements that can help jump-start EVCS installation for multifamily communities.&nbsp;</p> <h4><a href="https://www.cai-padelval.org/events/2021-new-jersey-regional-mini-trade-show-/?_zs=7Q4Ed&amp;_zl=iAQo2">Learn more and register here.</a>&nbsp;</h4> <p>&nbsp;</p>https://www.hillwallack.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10