Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Preserved Farmland Really Is for Farming
Quality of life means different things to different people. But in rural communities in New York State, and Suffolk County in particular, quality of life includes farms and open space, and the preservation of land for uses other than houses and shopping centers.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, recently decided Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Suffolk County Legislature, 2018 WL 1309949, an important case that pitted the interests of farmers and conservationists against a local advocacy group focused on open space and water quality. In a case closely watched by preservationists all over the country, the court confirmed that land preserved for farming under a Suffolk County program can, in fact, continue to be used for farming, including the construction of barns and other improvements critical to agricultural production.
While the court's ruling seems on its face to be one of common sense, the issues raised by the environmental group threatened to upend decades of farmland preservation efforts in Suffolk County.
Background
In General Municipal Law (GML §247), the State of New York authorizes local governments to purchase interests in “open space and open lands,” including “lands used in bona fide agricultural production.” This enabling legislation provides the backbone of local open space and agricultural preservation programs, including in the Towns and Villages in the Hamptons on the East End of Long Island. It authorizes not only the outright fee purchase of properties, but also the purchase of lesser interests to permanently restrict the use of the property for farming.
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.