You're fired!

To contact us Click HERE
Energized with their newfound enthusiasm for class warfare (you can always tell an amateur), the Republican candidates were making much of Romney's "gaffe" yesterday in which, speaking of the supposed need for more competition in health insurance, he displayed his solidarity with the working classes by saying, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."

You know something really strange is going on when Ron Paul is out there denouncing capitalists who take money from the middle class to enrich themselves.

But what left me marveling was not Romney's cluelessly echoing the very charges against his performance at Bain Capital, but rather his obliviousness to the fact that any firing that goes on in the health insurance business is done by the insurance companies, not consumers. After all, everyone wants to fire their health insurance company, usually while listening to the same Kenny G number for the 132nd time on hold waiting to have someone in Bombay swear they have no record of their claim. That's hardly the point when the insurers hold all the cards.


About a century ago the human race woke up to the fact that insurance is not a business like selling fruitcakes, notions, or drygoods. For one thing, the consumer is buying a pig in a very large poke when he takes out a life or casualty or other policy, paying up front for a benefit he may see only much later if at all. It's a situation absolutely made to order for those who dream of Ponzi schemes. For another, there is a huge disparity in information on the part of buyers and sellers: insurance companies employ rafts of actuaries to figure out how to make a profit; consumers simply have little basis for knowing what a fair price is. Thus in the late 19th and early 20th century, every state began tightly regulating insurers to make sure they did not flim-flam the customers, that they were held to standards of performance, and that they maintained adequate capital reserves to pay off claims that came due.

Any sentient mortal who has ever dealt with a health insurance company, or even more, who has had to buy his own heath insurance as a self-employed person, knows how ludicrous Romney's fairy tale about competition and consumer choice is in this distinctly un-free-market. The whole raison d'etre of the federal health care law was, lest we forget, that the free market has been an utter failure when insurers could turn you down for any reason or no reason; could reject you for having a preexisting condition; could raise your premiums by breathtaking amounts once they had you signed up; could drop you for getting sick; could drag out processing your claims for months or years; could arbitrarily choose not to cover certain needed procedures or conditions.

Buying a health policy outside of a group is more like applying tor a commission as a nuclear sub commander than hiring a guy to rake your leaves: comparison shopping has been virtually impossible; you have had to submit one application at a time, just to find out what whether you could get coverage and what the real price would actually be. And the companies (still) are masters of muddying the waters with extraordinarily complex pseudo-choices that simply obscure how much you're actually going to end up paying in the end and which make any true comparison shopping impossible, with endless variations on deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and optional coverage. (But they all have VERY nice colorful photographs on their web sites and brochures depicting attractive people being healthy.)

Even on an individual consumer level, even those who can afford health coverage don't have a prayer in this game.

But of course, the far greater market failure in health insurance is that insurers, left to their own devices and free competition, find that the way to maximize profits is simple: only sell policies to people who don't get sick.

This does not work very well as a system of improving the nation's health, containing health care costs, or encouraging preventive care.

The '60s made us do it

To contact us Click HERE
Paul Krugman's column today—noting that Charles Murray's new much ballyhooed book on the social divide is merely the latest example of a venerable conservative tactic to attribute all problems in American society to vague, unspecified things that Liberals Did in the Sixties—reminds me of my favorite anecdote from my days at the late and not-too-lamented weekly newsmagazine U.S. News & World Report.
One of the regular columnists for U.S. News at my time there was a superannuated softball buddy of demi-billionaire owner Mortimer B. Zuckerman's named John Leo.

Leo had been a fairly prominent New York Times reporter eons previous but by the '90s devoted his declining years to cranking out column after column for Snooze, every one of which was almost identical; they always began by decrying the decay of American values (generally defined as those upheld by the Catholic Church, particularly its implaccable opposition to abortion) and ended by concluding that this was all a direct and ineluctable consequence of "liberal permissiveness" of the 1960s.

A friend of mine on the magazine staff had the dubious honor of editing these columns. This editor frequently went to gym at the hotel next door where he had a membership and had a nodding acquaintance with another gym member, a lawyer at one of the nearby (and as I recall fairly old-fashioned) law firms.

One day my colleague was wearing his U.S. News T-shirt at the gym, which prompted his nodding acquaintance to speak up.

"Do you work at U.S. News?" he asked.

My colleague admitted the truth of the accusation.

"Really—do you know this guy John Leo?" he continued.

My colleague replied, "As as a matter of fact, I edit his column."

"Really," said the lawyer, growing more interested. "Could you give him a message for me?"

My colleague graciously said he would.

"I GET IT!" said the lawyer, and turned away.

I'm married to a US Citizen -- What Happens Next?

To contact us Click HERE
Marriage is a wonderful thing -- but how does it effect immigration law? Legal status? LPR (legal permanent resident or lawful permanent resident) and work status (EAD -- employment authorization documentation)?

It is important to remember that immigration is roughly divided into to sections -- innies and outties. Alright, perhaps the simplistic description is misplaced here, but the concept is the same. Are you inside the country, or outside the country? If you are outside the country, the process is I129F, I130, K3 (spouse). If you are inside the country, the process is I130, I485, and if illegal, I601 (waiver/hardship -- tricky here, as there are proposed rules changes with the 601/601A).

What are all these "I" forms, and what do they do?

First, "I" stands for "Immigration" and designates a type of government form related to USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service). You will occasionally also see EOIR forms (Executive Office of Immigration Review -- that's the immigration court), and DHS (Department of Homeland Security) or DS (Department of State) forms. However, for today's discussion, we're only focusing on "I" forms.

The I130 is arguably the most important form of the "spousal" immigration group. It notifies USCIS that a US citizen or LPR (green-card holder)has a family member (in this case, his/her spouse) that is eligible for entry into the US. By itself, the I130 does nothing. However, without the document, nothing else can be done to convert a non-immigrant status to an immigrant (i.e. wants to stay permanently) status.

An I129F is filed to request that a foreign national, currently outside of the United States, be granted a "K" visa. K visas permit finances (K1), family members (K2), and spouses (K3) entry into the United States for a set duration (in the case of a K3, the amount of time is 2 years, and includes permission to file an I765 once in the country to permit work). An actual "K" visa is not a form. It is a stamp/processing placed inside the foreign national's passport indicate the type of entry permitted. The form required is the I129F (F = Fiance, however, it is used for K2/K3 visas, also) filed by the US citizen/LPR. Once approved by USCIS, it is forwarded to the consulate in the area where the fiance/family member/spouse resides, and the fiance/family member/spouse can then contact the consulate to setup and interview and background check. Once they complete the interview and background check, the family member/fiance/spouse's passport is stamped, and they may enter the US under the immigrant visa classification "K".

Next blog will discuss the "in country" (innies!) processing of family members/fiances/spouses.

Have an immigration law question? Ask us! This is something we do everyday. From simple phone discussions to complex immigration court litigation. We're here to help -- and your first call is always free.

Sean R. Hanover, Esq
HanoverLawPC.com
Contact UsVisit the Hanover Law firm at www.hanoverlawpc.com

Appeals Court Rejects Golfer's Suit

To contact us Click HERE
A golfer who lost an eye sued after being struck by an errant shot.  the New York State Court of Appeals says not yelling "fore" wasn't reckless act.  The highest court in New York held: "Here, Kapoor's failure to warn of his intent to strike the ball did not amount to intentional or reckless conduct, and did not unreasonably increase the risks inherent in golf to which Anand consented. Rather, the manner in which Anand was injured -- being hit without warning by a "shanked" shot while one searches for one's own ball -- reflects a commonly appreciated risk of golf" 

To read the entire opinion (it is very short) click on: Azad Anand, et al., Appellants, v. Anoop Kapoor.    

The bottom-line for the Court was that there are certain inherent risks when one chooses to participate in a sporting activity and by that participation consents to these risks.   Absent a finding of reckless or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant there can be no liability.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people and there is no one to blame. 

New York Mechanic's Lien

To contact us Click HERE

This is a quickreference guide for common questions that come up regarding mechanic's liens inNew York. For specific inquiries please feel free to contact one of the attorneys in our offices. 

1.  Who Can File A Mechanic's Lien?

In general, anyone performing labor or furnishing materials for the improvementof real property may file a mechanic's lien when the labor or materials wererequested by the owner or its agent. It should go without saying that the liencan only be filed if money is owed. Some typical lienors are contractors,subcontractors, suppliers, architects, engineers and in some cases constructionmanagers.

2.  How Long Do I Have To File A Lien?

A lien filed against a residential single family private dwelling must be filedwithin four months of the last performance of labor or furnishment ofmaterials. A lien filed against any other private property must be filed withineight months after the completion of the contract, or the final performance ofthe work, or the final furnishing of the materials.

3.  How Long Does My Mechanic's Lien Last?

The lien is valid for one year. After that you must take steps to extend thelien. If not extended or foreclosed upon, the lien will expire by operation oflaw.

4.  How Do I Foreclose on a Mechanic's Lien?

Foreclosing on a mechanic's lien is a fairly complicated process that involvesfiling a formal lawsuit. There are specific people that must be included in thelawsuit and other specific requirements that justify retaining an attorney tohandle the foreclosure.

5.  What Do I Do If I Am Served With A Mechanic's Lien?

You have three options: 1) bond the lien; 2) commence legal proceedings todischarge the lien; or 3) do nothing (not recommend under most circumstances).For bonding the lien or attempting to discharge the lien through the courtsystems it is strongly recommended that you consult with an attorney.

6.  What Happens If I File A Lien That Is Not Accurate?

This is really a two part problem. First of all, a lien that is defective onits face (meaning in the actual terms set forth in the lien) can be summarilydischarged and will not protect you. Second, filing an improper lien can exposeyou to liability, especially in the case of a "willfully exaggeratedlien" where you are subject to treble damages and attorneys’ fees beingawarded against you.

You're fired!

To contact us Click HERE
Energized with their newfound enthusiasm for class warfare (you can always tell an amateur), the Republican candidates were making much of Romney's "gaffe" yesterday in which, speaking of the supposed need for more competition in health insurance, he displayed his solidarity with the working classes by saying, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."

You know something really strange is going on when Ron Paul is out there denouncing capitalists who take money from the middle class to enrich themselves.

But what left me marveling was not Romney's cluelessly echoing the very charges against his performance at Bain Capital, but rather his obliviousness to the fact that any firing that goes on in the health insurance business is done by the insurance companies, not consumers. After all, everyone wants to fire their health insurance company, usually while listening to the same Kenny G number for the 132nd time on hold waiting to have someone in Bombay swear they have no record of their claim. That's hardly the point when the insurers hold all the cards.


About a century ago the human race woke up to the fact that insurance is not a business like selling fruitcakes, notions, or drygoods. For one thing, the consumer is buying a pig in a very large poke when he takes out a life or casualty or other policy, paying up front for a benefit he may see only much later if at all. It's a situation absolutely made to order for those who dream of Ponzi schemes. For another, there is a huge disparity in information on the part of buyers and sellers: insurance companies employ rafts of actuaries to figure out how to make a profit; consumers simply have little basis for knowing what a fair price is. Thus in the late 19th and early 20th century, every state began tightly regulating insurers to make sure they did not flim-flam the customers, that they were held to standards of performance, and that they maintained adequate capital reserves to pay off claims that came due.

Any sentient mortal who has ever dealt with a health insurance company, or even more, who has had to buy his own heath insurance as a self-employed person, knows how ludicrous Romney's fairy tale about competition and consumer choice is in this distinctly un-free-market. The whole raison d'etre of the federal health care law was, lest we forget, that the free market has been an utter failure when insurers could turn you down for any reason or no reason; could reject you for having a preexisting condition; could raise your premiums by breathtaking amounts once they had you signed up; could drop you for getting sick; could drag out processing your claims for months or years; could arbitrarily choose not to cover certain needed procedures or conditions.

Buying a health policy outside of a group is more like applying tor a commission as a nuclear sub commander than hiring a guy to rake your leaves: comparison shopping has been virtually impossible; you have had to submit one application at a time, just to find out what whether you could get coverage and what the real price would actually be. And the companies (still) are masters of muddying the waters with extraordinarily complex pseudo-choices that simply obscure how much you're actually going to end up paying in the end and which make any true comparison shopping impossible, with endless variations on deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and optional coverage. (But they all have VERY nice colorful photographs on their web sites and brochures depicting attractive people being healthy.)

Even on an individual consumer level, even those who can afford health coverage don't have a prayer in this game.

But of course, the far greater market failure in health insurance is that insurers, left to their own devices and free competition, find that the way to maximize profits is simple: only sell policies to people who don't get sick.

This does not work very well as a system of improving the nation's health, containing health care costs, or encouraging preventive care.

The '60s made us do it

To contact us Click HERE
Paul Krugman's column today—noting that Charles Murray's new much ballyhooed book on the social divide is merely the latest example of a venerable conservative tactic to attribute all problems in American society to vague, unspecified things that Liberals Did in the Sixties—reminds me of my favorite anecdote from my days at the late and not-too-lamented weekly newsmagazine U.S. News & World Report.
One of the regular columnists for U.S. News at my time there was a superannuated softball buddy of demi-billionaire owner Mortimer B. Zuckerman's named John Leo.

Leo had been a fairly prominent New York Times reporter eons previous but by the '90s devoted his declining years to cranking out column after column for Snooze, every one of which was almost identical; they always began by decrying the decay of American values (generally defined as those upheld by the Catholic Church, particularly its implaccable opposition to abortion) and ended by concluding that this was all a direct and ineluctable consequence of "liberal permissiveness" of the 1960s.

A friend of mine on the magazine staff had the dubious honor of editing these columns. This editor frequently went to gym at the hotel next door where he had a membership and had a nodding acquaintance with another gym member, a lawyer at one of the nearby (and as I recall fairly old-fashioned) law firms.

One day my colleague was wearing his U.S. News T-shirt at the gym, which prompted his nodding acquaintance to speak up.

"Do you work at U.S. News?" he asked.

My colleague admitted the truth of the accusation.

"Really—do you know this guy John Leo?" he continued.

My colleague replied, "As as a matter of fact, I edit his column."

"Really," said the lawyer, growing more interested. "Could you give him a message for me?"

My colleague graciously said he would.

"I GET IT!" said the lawyer, and turned away.