Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Last May, the Court of Appeals handed down a 4-3 decision in 159 MP Corp. v Redbridge Bedford, 33 N.Y.3d 353 (2019). The facts and opposing opinions were faithfully reported at length in many publications [including this one, as well as] the New York Law Journal’s June 18, 2019 Court of Appeals Roundup column by William T. Russell Jr. and Lynn K. Neuner. I have concluded, however, that further comment and analysis is warranted on the three-judge dissent, which, if adopted by the majority, would have fundamentally altered the very foundation of New York contract law. The court has, for many decades, consistently adhered to interpretive approaches focused on enforcing the contracting parties’ intent, as revealed in the plain language set forth within the four corners of an agreement. In sharp contrast, the dissent advanced a novel, policy-based means of adjudicating contract disputes that would put an end to the predictability and stability that have become hallmarks of New York contract law, and the reasons why contracting parties have so often specified application of New York law in their agreements.
By Jun Kwon
The Financial Accounting Standards Board released a new set of lease accounting standards, ASC 842, which went into effect earlier this year. Most significantly, publicly traded companies are now obligated to list all leases of 12 months or longer on their balance sheets as both assets and liabilities. Large private companies will follow suit in 2020.
By Janice Inman
Defense Based on Federal Law Cannot Confer Federal Jurisdiction
By James O’Brien
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
Part One of this article outlined the basic elements of a subordination, non-disturbance and attornment agreement (SNDA), which regulates two competing interests in the same property — tenant’s right to possess its premises pursuant to its lease and mortgage lender’s security interest in that same premises. Part Two explains the differences between the concepts of “non-disturbance” and “recognition,” while contending that lease recognition is more important to the tenant than not having its possession disturbed.
By Thomas. C. Lambert and Steven Shackman
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.