Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Determining whether or not a government regulation constitutes a “taking” for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment can be a complex endeavor. The recent Second Department decision of Matter of New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 3 (Baycrest Manor Inc.), ___ A.D.3d ____, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8042, (Nov. 15, 2017), provides some guidance on three important regulatory takings issues.
By Timothy Hill
In a recent decision, the Eastern District of New York dismissed a multi-pronged challenge to a local municipal ordinance that regulates rental of property on a short-term or transient basis.
Neighborhood Garden Users May Establish Adverse Possession Claim
Purchaser Entitled to Return of Down Payment Upon Revocation of Mortgage Commitment After Expiration of Contingency Period
Law Firm Not Liable to Non-Client for Turnover of Escrow Funds
Law Firm Not Exempt From Claim Under RPL 265-B
Presumption of Due Execution Rebutted
Title Insurance Regulation Annulled
City Not Estopped to Object to Nonconforming Building
Lawyer Advertising Billboards Not Treated As Onsite Advertisements
Town Not Obligated to Consider Zoning Amendment
East Harlem Rezoning Upheld
Failure to Register Precludes Landlord from Collecting Otherwise Lawful Rent Increases
Unlawful Entry and Detained Proceeding Requires Proof of Possession