This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
WARNING: I know it's April Fool's Day, but this is not a joke. You know all about statutory and regulatory requirements for financial institutions to protect customer information that go back to Gramm Leach Bliley. However, a federal court recently held that an employer's information confidentiality policy violated the National Labor Relations Act because it could prohibit employees from discussing organizing a union outside the office.
Under recent legislation all New York City multi-family dwellings consisting of three or more apartments (including coops and condos) must adopt a smoking policy by August 28, 2018 and provide the policy to all current and prospective residents. This requirement has caused many coops and condos to consider making their buildings "smoke-free" by prohibiting smoking in individual apartments as well as the common areas of the building.
An appellate court sided with a contractor which drilled into a building's 60-year old gas line. The contractor had to pay for the repair to the line, but not to replace the original valves which caused it to fail a pressure test required by code.
40
40
Input your email to sign up, or if you already have an account, log in here!
Enter your email address to reset your password. A temporary password will be e‑mailed to you.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content