Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
While it is often thought that the marital privilege prohibits a spouse from testifying at all against, or relating to communications with, the other spouse, there are a number of well-accepted limitations on the scope and application of this statutory privilege. Based on long-standing exceptions and limitations, the privilege is often unavailable in many contexts in both criminal and commercial litigation.
New York's marital privilege is codified in CPLR 4502(b), which provides in full: 'A husband or wife shall not be required, or, without consent of the other if living, allowed, to disclose a confidential communication made by one to the other during marriage.' (There are statutory exceptions to the marital privilege in cases involving child abuse. See Prince, Richardson on Evidence ' 5-402 (11th ed., Farrell 1995).) The Court of Appeals has noted that '[t]he privilege, which is '[d]esigned to protect and strengthen the marital bond ' encompasses only those statements that are 'confidential,' that are induced by the marital relation and prompted by the affection, confidence and loyalty engendered by such relationship.” People v. Mills, 1 N.Y.3d 269, 276, 772 N.Y.S.2d 228, 232 (2003).
Thus, within the very definition and underlying purpose of the privilege are inherent limitations. For example, 'daily and ordinary exchanges' between spouses are not protected because the privilege encompasses only communications 'which would not have been made but for the absolute confidence in, and induced by, the marital relationship.' People v. Melski, 10 N.Y.2d 78, 80, 217 N.Y.S.2d 65, 67 (1961).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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?