We are proud to announce that Katherine H. Karl  and Anna E. Lynch  were selected by The Best Lawyers in America ® as recipients of the 2026 “Lawyer of the Year” award in Rochester, NY. "Lawyer of the Year" accolades are reserved for one individual per practice area in each metropolitan region, based on the highest aggregate peer feedback. This designation represents a rare and distinguished honor. Kate, named the Best Lawyers ®  2026 Banking and Finance Law “Lawyer of the Year,” is chair of Underberg & Kessler’s Commercial Lending  practice group and a partner in the Real Estate & Finance  practice group, Kate’s practice covers commercial real estate transfers, development, and financing. She has broad experience representing commercial lenders, owners, developers, and businesses in all aspects of acquisitions, sales, construction, development, and lease negotiations. Anna, named the Best Lawyers ®  2026 Health Care Law “Lawyer of the Year,” is a respected advisor to the medical community. Anna served as Underberg & Kessler’s Managing Partner for almost two decades and is a Partner in both the Health Care and Corporate & Business  practice groups. She represents hospitals, long-term care providers, physicians, and other providers throughout the Upstate New York region. Best Lawyers recognitions are based on an exhaustive Purely Peer Review ® evaluation. For the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America ® , more than 31 million evaluations were analyzed, with only the top 5% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. selected by their peers for inclusion in the guide.

We are proud to announce that 15 attorneys were recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America ®  and five attorneys were selected to the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America ® .   The attorneys selected by Best Lawyers  and their areas of recognition are: James A. Coniglio – Municipal Law, Geneseo, NY Patrick L. Cusato – Commercial Finance Law; Real Estate Law, Rochester, NY David H. Fitch  – Health Care Law; Litigation - Health Care; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants, Rochester, NY Steven R. Gersz  – Closely Held Companies and Family Businesses Law; Corporate Law; Corporate Governance Law; Health Care Law; Mergers & Acquisitions Law, Rochester, NY Timothy P. Johnson – Real Estate Law, Buffalo, NY Katherine H. Karl * – Banking and Finance Law; Commercial Finance Law; Commercial Transactions/UCC Law; Real Estate Law, Rochester, NY Paul F. Keneally  – Commercial Litigation; Employment Law – Management; Labor Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment; Litigation - Municipal; Municipal Law, Rochester, NY Thomas F. Knab  – Commercial Litigation; Litigation – Construction; Litigation – Insurance; Litigation - Labor and Employment, Buffalo, NY Anna E. Lynch * – Corporate Law; Elder Law; Health Care Law, Rochester, NY Colin D. Ramsey  – Commercial Litigation; Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants; Litigation – Health Care; Litigation – Insurance; Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants, Buffalo, NY Jennifer A. Shoemaker  – Civil Rights Law; Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment, Rochester, NY Margaret E. Somerset  – Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants, Rochester, NY David M. Tang  – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Health Care Law; Litigation - Banking and Finance; Litigation - Health Care, Rochester, NY Helen A. Zamboni  – Corporate Law; Real Estate Law, Rochester, NY Mindy L. Zoghlin  – Environmental Law; Land Use and Zoning Law, Rochester, NY   The attorneys selected by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch  and their areas of recognition are:  Ryan T. Biesenbach – Commercial Litigation; Labor and Employment Law – Management; Litigation - Labor and Employment, Rochester, NY Ericka B. Elliott – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Commercial Litigation; Health Care Law; Litigation - Banking and Finance; Municipal Law; Litigation - Labor and Employment, Rochester, NY Kyle C. Pittman  – Real Estate Law, Rochester, NY Andrew M. Washburn  – Banking and Finance Law; Real Estate Law, Rochester, NY Tyler J. Wilson  – Litigation - Labor and Employment, Rochester, NY   Best Lawyers recognitions are based on an exhaustive Purely Peer Review ® evaluation. For the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America ® , more than 31 million evaluations were analyzed, with only the top 5% of all practicing lawyers in the U.S. selected by their peers for inclusion in the guide. *Also awarded 2026 “Lawyer of the Year.”

We are pleased to introduce a blog series exploring the ins and outs of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). In the coming weeks, we’ll walk through the SEQRA process, covering everything from action classifications and completing required forms to preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), issuing findings, and facilitating public input. Whether you’re a municipal official, developer, planner, or a concerned resident, our goal is to make SEQRA accessible and practical. PART 1 – What is the Purpose of SEQRA, and When Does it Apply? Enacted in 1975, SEQRA is one of New York’s most important environmental statutes. It requires that state and local government agencies consider environmental impacts alongside social and economic factors before making decisions on discretionary actions. In doing so, SEQRA ensures that the potential environmental consequences of governmental actions are not overlooked—and that the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The Purpose of SEQRA SEQRA has two principal objectives: 1. Informed Decision-Making:  SEQRA compels agencies to identify and assess environmental impacts early in the planning process, giving them the opportunity to avoid or mitigate significant adverse effects before taking action. This encourages more thoughtful, balanced, and sustainable development across New York. 2. Transparency and Public Participation:  SEQRA requires that the review process be open and participatory. Public notice and comment periods allow community members to weigh in on actions that may affect their environment, neighborhoods, and quality of life. Ultimately, SEQRA serves as a framework to promote responsible development and preserve New York’s natural, cultural, and built environments. SEQRA applies a systematic framework to identify and mitigate potential environmental impacts before an action is carried out. This process begins with the determination of significance, where agencies assess whether an action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If such an impact is identified, a more detailed environmental review is required, often culminating in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This document provides a comprehensive analysis of potential environmental impacts and explores alternatives and mitigation measures. We’ll explore the EIS in greater depth in a future post. When SEQRA Applies Not every project is subject to SEQRA. The law only applies when a state or local agency undertakes, funds, or approves an “action,” and when that action involves discretionary decision-making. Some common examples of actions that may trigger SEQRA review include: Construction of roads, bridges, or other public infrastructure Adoption or amendment of zoning laws or comprehensive plans Site plan or subdivision approvals for private development Projects involving wetlands, coastal areas, or other environmentally sensitive sites Redevelopment of brownfield or former industrial sites Renewable energy projects (e.g., wind farms, solar installations) Public or private projects receiving governmental funding If an agency’s involvement is purely governmental/administrative, such as issuing a permit that must be granted if certain conditions are met, SEQRA does not apply. However, where discretion is exercised (e.g., in granting a variance, zoning change, or funding decision), SEQRA review is required before the agency can proceed. Conclusion SEQRA plays a vital role in New York's environmental governance by ensuring that environmental impacts are considered in the decision-making process of state and local agencies. By requiring the identification and mitigation of potential environmental impacts before an action is carried out, SEQRA promotes sustainable development and enhances public participation in governmental decisions. Understanding the types of actions that fall under SEQRA is crucial for navigating the regulatory landscape and ensuring compliance with environmental review requirements. Through its comprehensive framework, SEQRA continues to safeguard New York's environmental resources for the benefit of all its residents. If you have questions about SEQRA, need assistance with SEQRA, or are seeking guidance with an Environmental, Land Use & Zoning , or Municipal Law matter, please contact Jacob H. Zoghlin  at 585-258-2834 or jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com  or Mindy L. Zoghlin  at 585-258-2871 or mzoghlin@underbergkessler.com .

In Part 1 of our SEQRA Step-by-Step series, we explored the purpose of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and when it applies. In this post, we turn to the very first procedural step once you determine SEQRA applies - classifying the action. Correct classification under SEQRA is crucial, as it determines the level of review required, the forms to be completed, and whether the review must be coordinated among multiple agencies. SEQRA regulations divide actions into three categories: Type I, Unlisted, and Type II, each with specific criteria, examples, and procedural requirements. Understanding these categories ensures compliance and sets the stage for a smooth environmental review process. Type I Actions Type I actions are those that are more likely to have significant adverse impacts on the environment. These actions meet or exceed specific thresholds listed in SEQRA regulations. Examples include: Construction of 250 or more housing units in a municipality of fewer than 150,000 people Projects that physically alter 10 or more acres of land Non-residential projects exceeding 100,000 square feet of gross floor area Substantial changes in allowable uses in zoning regulations affecting 25 or more acres Projects that may affect a property listed on (or eligible for) the State or National Register of Historic Places Construction of facilities generating more than 2,500 vehicles per day at full buildout Key Points About Type I Actions: Review Requirements: These actions typically require a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) and may necessitate the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Coordinated Review: A coordinated review is mandatory, meaning all involved agencies must agree on a lead agency to oversee the environmental review process. This process will be covered in a subsequent blog post. Public Notice: Type I classification triggers public notice requirements. Unlisted Actions Unlisted actions do not meet Type I thresholds, are not listed as Type II but are not exempt from SEQRA review. This broad category includes many common municipal and development projects. Examples include: Small-scale commercial or residential developments under Type I thresholds Site plan approvals for mid-sized projects Minor zoning amendments affecting fewer than 25 acres Modifications to existing facilities that may still have environmental impacts Key Points About Unlisted Actions: Flexibility in Review: Unlisted actions generally require a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF). However, if the reviewing agency determines more detailed information is necessary, a FEAF may be required. Discretionary Review: The lead agency has the discretion to determine the significance of the environmental impacts and whether a DEIS is needed. Coordinated or Uncoordinated Review: Unlisted actions can undergo either coordinated or uncoordinated reviews. In an uncoordinated review, each involved agency conducts its own review and makes its own determination. Type II Actions Type II actions are predefined activities that are deemed to not have significant adverse environmental impacts and are thus exempt from further SEQRA review. These actions typically include minor or routine activities. Examples include: Routine maintenance and repair of existing facilities Replacement or rehabilitation of structures in kind Construction of accessory residential structures such as garages or sheds Ministerial acts like issuing a building permit for a code-compliant structure Adoption of regulations that set or amend fees without environmental effect Key Points About Type II Actions: No Further Review Required: Once an action is classified as Type II, no further SEQRA review, or determination of significance is required. Documentation (Optional): Although not mandatory, agencies may document the classification of an action as Type II for their records. Efficiency: Early recognition of Type II status saves time and resources. Why Classification Matters Whether an action is Type I, Unlisted, or Type II under SEQRA determines the depth and structure of the environmental review process and misclassification can delay projects, lead to legal challenges, or invalidate agency decisions. Correct classification ensures compliance, sets the scope for review, helps determine coordination and public involvement needs, and reduces the risk of procedural errors. If you have questions about SEQRA, need assistance with SEQRA, or are seeking guidance with an Environmental, Land Use & Zoning , or Municipal Law  matter, please contact Jacob H. Zoghlin  at 585-258-2834 or jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com  or Mindy L. Zoghlin  at 585-258-2871 or mzoghlin@underbergkessler.com .

We are pleased to announce that Joshua B. Beisker  has been named to the 2025 Rochester Business Journal  and The Daily Record  Trusts and Estates Power List, honoring top legal professionals in Western New York. “The people on these lists help make sure the legal needs of Rochester’s companies and residents are met, and they have helped their own organizations, and their clients navigate unprecedented changes in recent years. They are working to push the Rochester legal community forward during a time of uncertainty, and we are excited to see what they are able to accomplish going forward," stated Ben Jacobs, Associate Publisher and Editor of Rochester Business Journal and The Daily Record . This marks Josh’s fifth consecutive year on the Trusts and Estates Power List. He is a Partner and Chair of the Estates & Trusts  and Tax Law practice groups, Co-Chair of the Corporate & Business  practice group, and he is a member of Underberg & Kessler’s Executive Committee. Josh advises clients on complex estate planning and estate administration matters, including estate and income tax planning, the preparation of wills and trusts, durable powers of attorney, health care proxies, and fiduciary administration. He also represents corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and individuals in connection with mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, business planning and financing, as well as advising on day-to-day operations and on achieving tax efficiencies. Josh is a frequent lecturer at numerous organizations including the National Business Institute, universities and other educational institutions, adult education programs, financial planning organizations, alumni groups, and community organizations. He is a member of the Rochester Regional Health Foundation Planned Giving Committee, the Estate Planning Council of Rochester, and the Monroe County Bar Association. Josh earned an LLM in Taxation from Villanova University School of Law, a J.D. from St. Thomas University School of Law, and his B.A. from Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

We are pleased to announce that Leah Tarantino Cintineo  has been named to the 2025 Rochester Business Journal  and The Daily Record  Litigation Power List, honoring top legal professionals in Western New York. “The people on these lists help make sure the legal needs of Rochester’s companies and residents are met, and they have helped their own organizations, and their clients navigate unprecedented changes in recent years. They are working to push the Rochester legal community forward during a time of uncertainty, and we are excited to see what they are able to accomplish going forward," stated Ben Jacobs, Associate Publisher and Editor of Rochester Business Journal and The Daily Record . Leah is a Partner and Chair of both the Litigation Department and the Family Law Practice Group and she is a member of Underberg & Kessler’s Executive Committee. This marks her second consecutive year on the Litigation Power List. She was also recognized by Rochester Business Journal and  The Daily Record on the 2022 and 2023 Power 20 Family Law Lists. She represents clients in divorce and post-divorce matters, pre-nuptial agreements, high conflict child custody litigation, and child support litigation. She also has years of experience handling divorce matters involving businesses, complex financial issues, and extensive marital estates, as well as preparing QDROs for the division of retirement assets at the completion of a divorce. Leah practices in both Supreme and Family Courts throughout the Seventh Judicial District, serves on the Attorneys for Children panel for the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and is a certified collaborative divorce attorney and member of the Collaborative Law Association of the Rochester Area (CLARA). She is a member of the Monroe County Bar Association and its Family Law Section and a member of the Ontario County Bar Association, where she recently served as President. Leah is also a member of the Greater Rochester Association of Women Attorneys (GRAWA) and President-Elect of the 2025-2026 Board of Directors. She previously served on the Society for the Protection and Care of Children Board of Directors, including as Board Chair, and she is a former member of the Seventh Judicial District Attorney Grievance Committee. Leah earned her J.D. from Albany Law School and her B.A. from The State University of New York at Geneseo.

Congratulations to Paul F. Keneally  for being named to the 2025 Rochester Business Journal  and The Daily Record Labor & Employment Power List, honoring top legal professionals in Western New York. “The people on these lists help make sure the legal needs of Rochester’s companies and residents are met, and they have helped their own organizations, and their clients navigate unprecedented changes in recent years. They are working to push the Rochester legal community forward during a time of uncertainty, and we are excited to see what they are able to accomplish going forward," stated Ben Jacobs, Associate Publisher and Editor of Rochester Business Journal and The Daily Record . Paul is a Partner in the firm’s Labor & Employment , Litigation , and Municipal Law  practice groups, and he serves as Chair of Underberg & Kessler’s Labor & Employment practice group. This marks his fourth consecutive year on the Rochester Business Journal and  The Daily Record Labor & Employment Law Power List. Paul advises clients on a wide range of day-to-day labor and employment matters, helps resolve complex commercial, construction, and labor and employment disputes, and defends municipalities and public entities. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, and the Monroe County Bar Association. Paul is active in the community and serves on the Board of Directors of St. John's Foundation and as Counsel to the Board of Directors and Management of The Tennis Club of Rochester. He is a past member of Literacy Rochester, Career Services Development, and Young Audiences of Rochester Boards of Directors as well as the past Legislative Representative for the Genesee Valley Chapter of the Society of Human Resources Management. Paul earned his J.D., cum laude , from Fordham University School of Law and his B.A. from Amherst College.

The estate and gift tax landscape was poised for a major shift at the end of 2025 with the scheduled sunset of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). That sunset would have significantly reduced the federal estate and gift tax exemption amounts. However, on July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law, making permanent several key tax provisions originally enacted under the TCJA. Among the most impactful changes for estate planners: a substantial increase to the federal estate and gift tax exemption thresholds. What Changed Under the OBBBA? Beginning January 1, 2026, the federal estate and gift tax exemption will rise to $15 million per individual, or $30 million for married couples, with both amounts indexed annually for inflation. This means that individuals may transfer up to $15 million—and married couples up to $30 million—free from federal estate and gift taxes. Planning Opportunities in a Shifting Landscape While the OBBBA offers welcome certainty in the near term, it’s important to recognize that future Congresses can still modify or reduce the exemption. For example, a change in the political majority could occur as early as 2027 (after the 2026 midterm elections) or in 2029 (following the 2028 presidential election). A new Congress could repeal or revise the OBBBA provisions, bringing planning opportunities to a close. Although the urgency to act before the end of 2025 has eased, high-net-worth individuals should not assume these favorable exemptions are permanent. It remains prudent to consider using available exemption amounts now, especially through lifetime gifting strategies, before any potential legislative rollback. Bottom Line The OBBBA has delivered a powerful planning opportunity for individuals and families to preserve and transfer wealth. But with political uncertainty always in play, it’s wise to consult with your estate planning attorney to evaluate your current plan and explore options for taking advantage of today’s historically high exemptions while they last. For help with estate planning and estate administration matters, please contact Joshua B. Beisker at jbeisker@underbergkessler.com or 585-258-2879.

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed H.R. 1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) into law. Among other provisions, the OBBBA provides federal income tax deductions for a portion of eligible worker’s tips and overtime earnings. The new law applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, and is retroactive to January 1, 2025. Both deductions are temporary and are set to expire after the 2028 tax year. It is important to note that these are not tax eliminations and that employers are still required to withhold federal income tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA), as well as any state and/or local taxes from tips and overtime wages. No Tax on Some Tips: The OBBBA creates a separate deduction for tipped workers, allowing them to deduct up to $25,000 in qualified tips from their income subject to federal income tax. This amount is reduced by $100 for each $1,000 by which the tipped worker’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000 ($300,000 in the case of a joint return). The OBBBA caps the deduction at $12,500 (or $25,000, in the case of a joint return) for all employees. To be considered a qualified tip, the tip amount must be paid voluntarily, is not subject to negotiation and is determined by the payor, not the business or the employee. The deduction is allowed for employees receiving a W-2, independent contractors receiving a 1099-K or 1099-NEC, and taxpayers reporting tips on Form 4137, and is limited for tips earned in occupations that “customarily and regularly” received tips before 2025. The new law also extends employer eligibility for the FICA tip credit, a benefit previously applicable only to food or beverage service employees, to include tips earned by employees providing beauty services such as hair care, nail care, and spa treatments. No Tax on Some Overtime: The new law creates a tax deduction from gross income for qualified overtime compensation. For covered, nonexempt employees, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one-half times an employee's regular rate of pay after 40 hours of work in a workweek. The new deduction applies only to the premium compensation paid in excess of an employee’s regular rate of pay. For example, if an employee’s regular rate of pay is $15 per hour, the employee’s overtime rate is $22.50 per hour. Only the $7.50 overtime premium for that hour may be deducted. Workers can deduct $12,500 ($25,000 in the case of a joint return) in overtime pay from their income subject to federal income tax. For higher earners, the allowable deduction is reduced by $100 for each $1,000 by which the employee’s gross income exceeds $150,000 (or $300,000, in the case of a joint return). Considerations for Employers: While these provisions are likely to be popular with many employees, especially hospitality and service industry workers and employees who routinely work significant amounts of overtime, they bring some challenges for employers. Here are a few considerations: Because employers are now required to separately track and report overtime wages and qualified tips on tax forms, they may need to update payroll and reporting systems to comply as employee eligibility for new deductions will rely on accurate employer reporting. Employers should be aware of what are and are not considered qualified tips so they can report properly. Service charges, like 18% gratuities automatically placed on large parties at restaurants, are not tips. Tips received under tip-sharing arrangements count as qualified tips. The deductions offer new opportunities to restructure compensation policies and re-classify positions. For example, some exempt employees who work over 40 hours a week may ask to be reclassified as non-exempt because more of their earnings would be deductible. Employers should consult with their attorney before making changes to their pay practices to ensure compliance with applicable law and to avoid legal problems. To date, the IRS has not yet issued formal guidance on how these provisions will be applied. We will continue to monitor and provide guidance on how the OBBBA will impact employers. If you have any questions about these provisions or any Labor or Employment law issues, please contact our Labor & Employment team: Paul F. Keneally , 585-258-2882, pkeneally@underbergkessler.com Jennifer A. Shoemaker , 585-258-2825, jshoemaker@underbergkessler.com Ryan T. Biesenbach , 585-258-2865, rbiesenbach@underbergkessler.com

Across New York State and the country, communities are seeing a wave of major technology-based development projects: semiconductor fabrication plants, battery manufacturing facilities, data centers, and cryptocurrency mining operations, to name a few. While these projects often promise substantial economic investment and job creation, they can also have significant and lasting impacts on local environments, infrastructure, and quality of life. The Growing Footprint of Large Tech Projects As industries evolve and global supply chains shift, high-tech manufacturing and energy-intensive operations are increasingly moving into new areas, including rural and suburban communities. These projects tend to require massive amounts of land, energy, and water, and often involve hazardous materials or environmentally sensitive processes. Communities are rightly starting to ask questions about what these developments mean for their health, safety, and long-term sustainability. Common Environmental and Community Impacts Whether it's a chip manufacturing facility, a cryptocurrency mining farm, or a large-scale data center, these types of developments often raise concerns under New York's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), including: Air and water quality impacts Energy and water consumption Wastewater discharge and treatment needs Wetland disturbance or habitat destruction Noise and light pollution Traffic congestion and infrastructure strain Cumulative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods These impacts can be especially significant when projects are proposed near residential areas, sensitive ecosystems, or communities already burdened by pollution or inadequate infrastructure. A Public Process with Real Power In New York State, SEQRA gives the public the right to participate in the review process for projects that may significantly affect the environment. This includes the right to: Review Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Submit public comments Attend hearings and voice concerns Propose mitigation or alternatives These steps aren't just formalities, they're legal mechanisms that can lead to real changes in how a project is built, operated, or approved. Large tech projects can offer meaningful opportunities for economic development, but only if they are planned transparently, reviewed thoroughly, and implemented responsibly. Public engagement is essential to making sure growth does not come at the expense of environmental protection, community character, or public health. Why Legal Guidance Matters Navigating SEQRA and other environmental regulations isn’t easy. Large-scale developments often involve: Complex scientific data and technical reports Multiple government agencies and overlapping jurisdictions Strict deadlines and procedural rules An experienced land use and environmental attorney can help you participate effectively in this process—whether you're a concerned resident, an advocacy group, a municipality, or a business. Legal guidance ensures your voice is heard, your comments are properly submitted, and your interests are protected in both the administrative and judicial arenas. If you're concerned about a major project proposed in your community or if you're seeking to participate in the SEQRA process, our firm can help ensure that growth happens responsibly, transparently, and lawfully. Please contact Jacob H. Zoghlin  at 585-258-2834 or jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com  if you have questions about SEQRA, need assistance with the process, or are seeking guidance with an environmental , land use, or zoning matter.

Sending a child off to college is a time of pride, celebration, and transition both for parents and their children. Parents who have been devoted to every aspect of their child’s life, from hobbies to sports to academics and friendships, now will have inevitably less control over their child’s day-to-day lives. In addition, many parents don’t realize that once a child turns 18, they are considered emancipated adults and parents have little to no legal right or ability to assist without the direct permission of the child. This is especially concerning when a situation has occurred where the child is unable to give permission. In that context, parents of college students (or of any child who has turned 18 years old) should encourage their young adult to execute a durable power of attorney, health care proxy, and living will. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) provides that only the young adult and their authorized agent have the right to access the young adult’s medical records. Therefore, it is important that all adults execute a health care proxy and living will which allows the person(s) named as the agent(s) thereunder to access their medical records. Having this authorization in place will allow a hospital or other medical provider to provide information on a young adult’s condition and care to the young adult’s parents or other named authorized persons in the event a young adult is incapacitated and cannot communicate with their physicians. The young adult may also appoint successors to act if the first named health care agent is unavailable. Appointing a health care agent is crucial to avoiding delays in medical decisions as well as unnecessary expense and stress that could be caused by the necessity of filing a guardianship action in court. A durable power of attorney appoints an attorney-in-fact to handle an adult’s financial affairs. The young adult may appoint more than one person to act as their attorney-in-fact and may appoint successors as well. Such power can be immediate or “springing,” meaning that an event of incapacity is required for the durable power of attorney to be effective, and it must be determined which power of attorney is best for the young adult. If a young adult were to become incapacitated, the durable power of attorney would allow for someone to handle their financial affairs without the need for a court appointed guardian. With all the hundreds of things to do before you move your child into campus, estate planning is likely the last thing on your mind. However, having certain estate planning documents in place can help avoid unexpected problems and provide peace of mind as your young adult leaves home for college. For help with the estate planning process and to ensure you and your loved ones are protected, contact Joshua B. Beisker at jbeisker@underbergkessler.com or 585-258-2879.

In a major victory for local climate action and environmental regulation, the New York State Court of Appeals recently upheld New York City’s Local Law 97 against a legal challenge that alleged it was preempted by state law. The decision in Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v. City of New York  affirms the authority of local governments to impose their own climate-related regulations, even when the state has also acted in the same field. This landmark ruling has significant implications for municipalities, businesses, and the future of environmental law in New York State. Local Law 97: A Bold Step to Cut Building Emissions Passed in 2019, Local Law 97 is one of the most ambitious municipal climate initiatives in the United States. It targets greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings, which account for nearly 70% of New York City’s carbon footprint. The law requires substantial emissions reductions—40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 (compared to 2005 levels)—and imposes enforceable caps on individual buildings based on their size and usage. Covered buildings must either meet these targets or face significant penalties. To implement and enforce these rules, the law established a dedicated Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance. This office is tasked with guiding compliance, offering resources, and holding building owners accountable. The Legal Challenge: Field Preemption and the Climate Act Not long after the City enacted Local Law 97, the New York State Legislature passed its own sweeping climate legislation, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“Climate Act”). The Climate Act aims to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the Climate Act takes a broader, more aspirational approach: it sets overarching goals and establishes a framework for developing specific policies and regulations over time, led by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the newly formed Climate Action Council. Landlords of large residential properties challenged the City’s Local Law 97, arguing that the state’s Climate Act preempted the City’s law. Their theory was one of “field preemption,” and that by enacting a comprehensive climate policy, the state legislature intended to occupy the entire field of greenhouse gas regulation, leaving no room for local laws like Local Law 97. The Court’s Decision: No Preemption, Local Action Preserved In a unanimous decision, the New York State Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ preemption claim. The court held that the Climate Act does not evince a clear legislative intent to preempt local regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Quite the opposite, the court pointed to the Climate Act’s savings clause , which explicitly states that the Act does not relieve anyone from complying with other applicable federal, state, or local   laws . Moreover, the court emphasized the longstanding role that local governments play in protecting public health and the environment. It noted that Local Law 97 was enacted before the Climate Act, that it complements—not conflicts with—the state’s goals, and that nothing in the Climate Act requires statewide uniformity in how emissions reductions are achieved. The court interpreted the state’s framework as intentionally flexible and inclusive of local innovation. The decision sends a strong message that municipalities can, and should, act on climate change, even if the state is also tackling the issue from a broader perspective. Why This Matters for Local Governments This ruling reaffirms the authority of local governments to address environmental issues head-on. It affirms that state-level environmental laws set the floor, not the ceiling. Localities remain free to adopt stricter or more tailored regulations to meet the unique needs of their communities. For municipalities looking to tackle climate change, especially through land use and building regulation, the court’s decision is empowering. It provides legal backing for forward-thinking policies that promote energy efficiency, green infrastructure, and emissions reductions. It also reinforces New York’s “home rule” principles, which give local governments autonomy over matters affecting the health, safety, and welfare of their residents—especially in areas where the state has not expressly or impliedly taken over the field. What It Means for the Business Community For property owners and developers, the decision underscores the importance of monitoring not just state-level regulations, but also local environmental ordinances. Compliance with state climate goals does not excuse non-compliance with stricter local laws. Businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions should be prepared for a patchwork of local climate policies, especially in areas where environmental concerns are pressing. While this can add complexity, it also presents opportunities, such as incentives for energy-efficient upgrades, access to green building programs, and the chance to lead in sustainability. Broader Environmental Significance Perhaps most importantly, the decision validates a “layered” approach to environmental regulation, where local, state, and federal governments each play a role in combating climate change. Rather than viewing overlapping laws as a problem, the court recognized them as complementary. In the face of a global climate crisis, every level of government has a part to play. By allowing Local Law 97 to stand, the court bolstered one of the most aggressive urban climate policies in the United States and signaled to other cities, counties, and local governments, that they have legal room to act boldly. Looking Ahead As implementation deadlines under Local Law 97 draw near, New York City building owners will need to invest in retrofits, energy-efficient systems, and carbon reduction strategies. The ruling leaves no ambiguity: compliance is not optional, and legal challenges based on state preemption are unlikely to succeed. For other municipalities, the decision opens the door to crafting their own climate policies, especially in areas like building codes, land use, and energy efficiency. The court’s recognition of local authority could inspire more cities, towns, and villages across New York States to act. And for environmental lawyers and policy professionals, the ruling will be a touchstone case in understanding the interplay between state environmental statutes and local laws in the years to come. Jacob H. Zoghlin is a Partner in Underberg & Kessler LLP’s Litigation department and chairs the firm’s Environmental Law and Municipal Law practice groups. He focuses his practice in the areas of environmental law, municipal law, development law, energy law, zoning and land use law, cannabis law, Article 78 proceedings, and related litigation. He can be reached at jzoghlin@underbergkessler.com  or 585-258-2834. Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record and available as a PDF file here .