Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Attorneys' Fees Not Available in Non-Matrimonial Action
The plaintiff in an action to set aside a stipulation of settlement, incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, was not entitled to attorneys' fees in accordance with D.R.L. ' 237 (b) because this was not a matrimonial action. Fine v. Fine, 2006 NY Slip Op 1276 (2d Dept. 2/21/06) (Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ.).
Plaintiff's former wife instituted an action to set aside a stipulation of settlement dated June 22, 1999, which was incorporated, but not merged, into the parties' judgment of divorce, on the grounds that it was fraudulently induced. The complaint sought no relief under the judgment of divorce. The Supreme Court, Queens County, pursuant to D.R.L. ' 237 (b), granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees of $5000. In doing so, it relied on Conrad v. Conrad, 64 AD2d 751. The defendant appealed.
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 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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.