Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Determining whether or not a government regulation constitutes a “taking” for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment can be a complex endeavor. The recent Second Department decision of Matter of New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 3 (Baycrest Manor Inc.), ___ A.D.3d ____, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8042, (Nov. 15, 2017), provides some guidance on three important regulatory takings issues.
*May exclude premium content
By Stewart E. Sterk
In a set of foreclosure cases decided in late February, the Court of Appeals resolved some of the questions that have plagued New York’s court system in the aftermath of last decade’s mortgage crisis.
Claim That Bank Lacked Standing to Foreclose Waived By Failing to Raise Standing In Answers or Pre-Answer Motions
Seller Denied Summary Judgment on Purchaser’s Fraudulent Inducement Claim
Fraudulent Transfer Claim Reinstated
Questions of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment on Counterclaim for Improper Diversion of Water
Supreme Court Improperly Denied Specific Performance to Purchasers
Delay In Vacating a Default Justifies Application of Laches Doctrine to Prior Mortgagee
Mortgagor Who Failed to Appear Not Entitled to Vacate Foreclosure Sale
Judgment Lien Enforced Despite Error In Docketed Amount
Tenant Entitled to Terminate Lease When Premises Were Not Broom Clean
Provision Ending Discounted Rate If Tenant Pays Late Is Unenforceable
By NYRE Staff
Use Variance Denial Upheld