Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>BREAKING NEWS:</b> NY Appellate Court Recognizes Canadian Same-Sex Marriage
An Appellate Division, Fourth Department, panel unanimously ruled Feb. 1 that a gay couple's marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York. The ruling, the first appellate decision in the state to recognize a same-sex marriage from another jurisdiction, overturned a Monroe County judge's decision that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefits to an employee's lesbian partner.
The appeals panel held that the college employee, Patricia Martinez, and her partner, Lisa Ann Golden, are entitled to health coverage because there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage contracted in jurisdictions where it is legal.
The Court of Appeals has declined to accord such recognition to New York same-sex marriages. Until the state Legislature adopts legislation expressly “prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” Justice Erin M. Peradotto wrote for the panel, “such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.” Justices Robert G. Hurlbutt, Salvatore R. Martoche, Eugene M. Fahey and Samuel L. Green also sat on the panel. The decision reversed a ruling by Monroe County Justice Harold L. Galloway. Other lower court judges have split on the issue, with Albany and Westchester County justices supporting recognition and a Nassau County justice opposing it (NYLJ, Sept. 13, 2007). The issue is pending in the Second and Third departments. Martinez v. County of Monroe, 1562, will be published on Feb. 7.
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.
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.
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.