Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Rarely do lawyers have the benefit of a decision that is a primer on permissible causes of action arising from property insurance coverage disputes. Kings Infiniti v. Zurich American Ins., 43 Misc.3d 1207(A) (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. April 3, 2014), is one of those decisions. Justice Carolyn Demarest clearly and concisely addressed each issue raised by the defendants (collectively, Zurich) who successfully obtained a dismissal on a CPLR 3211 motion of several of the causes of action in the plaintiffs' amended complaint. However, a Court of Appeals decision, decided while the Infiniti motion was under submission, may allow the plaintiff to revive its case.
Hurricane Sandy Damage
The plaintiffs were three commonly owned car dealerships and service centers, all of which in October 2012 suffered extensive damages, alleged to be in the seven figures, from Hurricane Sandy. They had served an amended complaint containing 10 causes of action against the two Zurich defendants arising from what was essentially a breach of an insurance contract claim.
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.