Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
Pet Rule Inconsistent with Bylaws
Yusin v. Saddle Lakes Home Owners Association, Inc.
Terrace Alterations; No Preliminary Injunction
Board of Managers of Wharfside Condominium v. Nehrich
Claim Against Sponsor Dismissed
Board of Managers of the Chelsea 19 Condominium v. Chelsea 19 Associates
ILSA Exemption Inapplicable
Cruz v. Leviev Fulton Club LLC
* * *
Development
No Standing to Challenge Site Plan
Matter of Riverhead PGC, LLC v. Town of Riverhead
Special Permit for Religious Use
Matter of Capriola v. Wright
SEQRA Challenge Dismissed
Matter of Wallkill Cemetery Association, Inc. v. Town of Wallkill Planning Board
* * *
Landlord & Tenant
Assignee Waived Challenge to Assignor's Right to Assign
CPS Operating Co. LLC v. Pathmark Stores Inc.
Restrictive Covenant Not Enforceable Against Prior Tenant
Fratelli's Pizza and Restaurant Corp. v. Kayzee Realty Corp.
Terminating Tenant Liable for Post-Termination Rent
Eujoy Realty Corp. v. Van Wagner Communications
* * *
Real Property Law
Summary Judgment Denied in Foreclosure Action
First National Bank of Nevada v. Williams
First Mortgagee Owes No Duty to Second Mortgagee
Rabinowitz v. Deutsche Bank
Cooperatives & Condominiums
Pet Rule Inconsistent with Bylaws
Yusin v. Saddle Lakes Home Owners Association, Inc.
Terrace Alterations; No Preliminary Injunction
Board of Managers of Wharfside Condominium v. Nehrich
Claim Against Sponsor Dismissed
Board of Managers of the Chelsea 19 Condominium v. Chelsea 19 Associates
ILSA Exemption Inapplicable
Cruz v. Leviev Fulton Club LLC
* * *
Development
No Standing to Challenge Site Plan
Matter of Riverhead PGC, LLC v. Town of Riverhead
Special Permit for Religious Use
Matter of Capriola v. Wright
SEQRA Challenge Dismissed
Matter of Wallkill Cemetery Association, Inc. v. Town of Wallkill Planning Board
* * *
Landlord & Tenant
Assignee Waived Challenge to Assignor's Right to Assign
CPS Operating Co. LLC v. Pathmark Stores Inc.
Restrictive Covenant Not Enforceable Against Prior Tenant
Fratelli's Pizza and Restaurant Corp. v. Kayzee Realty Corp.
Terminating Tenant Liable for Post-Termination Rent
Eujoy Realty Corp. v. Van Wagner Communications
* * *
Real Property Law
Summary Judgment Denied in Foreclosure Action
First National Bank of Nevada v. Williams
First Mortgagee Owes No Duty to Second Mortgagee
Rabinowitz v.
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.