Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
Decedent's Co-op Apartment
Estate of Fernanders
Condo Board's Authority
Kaung v. Board of Managers Of Biltmore Towers Condominium Association
Mitchell-Lama Unit
East Midtown Plaza Housing Inc. v. Cuomo
* * *
Development
Fair Housing Act
Human Resource Research and Management Group v. County of Suffolk
Brownfield Program
Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates v. New York State DEC
'Class of One' Equal Protection
Toussie v. Town Board of the Town of East Hampton
Jurisdiction to Regulate Wetlands
Matter of Pletenik v. Town of Brookhaven
ZBA's Failure to Follow Precedent
Matter of Moore v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals
* * *
Landlord & Tenant
Restoration of Wall
Bazin v. Walsam 240 Owner, LLC
Structural Repairs
Rapp v. 136 Oak Street Drive Associates
* * *
Real Property Law
Lateral and Subjacent Support
Canarick v. Cicarelli
Title Insurance; Lack of Access
Uzzle v. Nunzie Court Homeowners Association
Recording Act Protection
Sprint Equities Inc. v. Sylvester
Priority of Judgment Lien
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Gonzalez
Cooperatives & Condominiums
Decedent's Co-op Apartment
Estate of Fernanders
Condo Board's Authority
Kaung v. Board of Managers Of Biltmore Towers Condominium Association
Mitchell-Lama Unit
East Midtown Plaza Housing Inc. v. Cuomo
* * *
Development
Fair Housing Act
Human Resource Research and Management Group v. County of Suffolk
Brownfield Program
Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates v.
'Class of One' Equal Protection
Toussie v. Town Board of the Town of East Hampton
Jurisdiction to Regulate Wetlands
Matter of Pletenik v. Town of Brookhaven
ZBA's Failure to Follow Precedent
Matter of Moore v. Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals
* * *
Landlord & Tenant
Restoration of Wall
Bazin v. Walsam 240 Owner, LLC
Structural Repairs
Rapp v. 136 Oak Street Drive Associates
* * *
Real Property Law
Lateral and Subjacent Support
Canarick v. Cicarelli
Title Insurance; Lack of Access
Uzzle v. Nunzie Court Homeowners Association
Recording Act Protection
Sprint Equities Inc. v. Sylvester
Priority of Judgment Lien
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.
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.
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.
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.