Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
New York Follows Other States
In October 2005, a New York appellate court ruling in Chen v. Fischer, 12 A.D.3d 43, appeared to make a substantial change in the way litigation is managed where both matrimonial causes of action and tort claims are asserted in New York. The Second Department had held, for the first time, that an interspousal tort action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries commenced subsequent to, and separate from, an action for divorce is barred upon the res judicata principles of claim preclusion. In short, a spouse had to bring any personal injury claim he or she might have as a cause of action within the matrimonial action. A separate tort action was no longer tenable.
In December 2005, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion in which the full court concurred. In its ruling, the court held that a litigant is not precluded from litigating a personal injury claim in an action separate from the matrimonial action. If a separate interspousal tort action is contemplated, however, or has been commenced, the better practice would be to include a reservation of rights in the judgment of divorce. Furthermore, if fault allegations are actually litigated in a matrimonial action, res judicata, or some form of issue preclusion would bar a subsequent action in tort based upon the same allegations.
Thus, the Court of Appeals restored the principles that governed these situations prior to the Second Department decision, while alerting the practitioner to remain wary of the possibility of issue preclusion.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.