Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Development
Merger Defeats Single and Separate Ownership Claim
Harn Food, LLC v. Dechance, Comment The language of a local ordinance determines whether and to what extent a landowner who owns a lot that was conforming before enactment of a zoning ordinance enjoys a “single and separate” ownership exemption from the minimum area and frontage provisions of the ordinance. The NY Court of Appeals in 87 N.Y.2d 344 held that pre-existing lots enjoy no common law right to an exemption from minimum area ordinances. Generally, when two lots come into common ownership the lots merge and the owner loses any single and separate ownership exemption. In 142 A.D.2d 582, the court held that landowner was not entitled to the exemption because the nonconforming parcel had been jointly owned with an adjoining property for nine years. The code required that the parcel for which a single and separate exemption is being sought must not have come into common ownership with adjoining property. Similarly, in , 234 A.D.2d 462, the court found that the township properly construed its zoning ordinance to find that, due to common ownership, the subject parcel had merged with the adjoining parcel. The court upheld both the denial of an exemption and the denial of a variance, noting that the requested variance was substantial: landowner sought to build on a 22,500 square foot parcel in a district where minimum lot size was 40,000 square feet. Some courts have recognized an exception to merger if adjoining lots which form back-to-back splits are: 1) not used in conjunction with one another; and 2) do not enhance the utility or value of each other. The court in , 20 A.D.3d 425 held the ZBA acted without a factual basis when it determined that back-to-back lots merged because they were held in common ownership. In , one lot was nonconforming but developed with a single-family house, while the lot behind it was vacant but conformed to all requirements of the existing ordinance. There once had been a fence separating the lots, and the vacant lot was never used as a backyard, was overgrown, and was used as a dumping ground for neighbors. In cases like , where the two lots front on different streets, courts implicitly recognize that no zoning purposes area advanced by mandating that a conforming building lot remain vacant because it is in common ownership with a nonconforming lot fronting on a different street.Failure to Refer to County Planning Board Invalidates Grant of Area Variance
Matter of Fichera v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,Denial of Natural Resources Special Permit Upheld
Matter of 278, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals,Village Ratifies Extension of Lease to Cell Phone Provider
Giunta v. AG Towers, Inc.,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.