Call 855-808-4530 or email Gro[email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in City of Portland v. Unites States, No. 18-72689 (9th Cir. 2020), significantly affects the ability of local governments to regulate the installation of so called “small cell” wireless facilities and addresses the ability of wireless providers to utilize utility poles. The underlying FCC orders issued in 2018 (the Orders) addressed issues arising from developing 5G broadband technology. The City of Portland upholds most, but finds some of the Orders overbroad. The decision contains nine rulings on the challenged Orders, and this Article will focus on those having the most significant implications for 5G deployment and state and local regulations. The decision rests upon the FCC’s authority created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) promulgated to address issues arising out of the then new wireless telecommunications industry. The Act states in pertinent part that the FCC is authorized: “to preempt any state and local requirements that ‘prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting’ any entity from providing telecommunications services. See, 47 U.S.C. §253(a), (d).”
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Second Department Rules That Cooperative Apartment Owners’ Rights Are Precarious
By Paul Golden
On June 14, 2023, the Second Department decided Walsh v Ocwen Loan Servicing. The court, with little fanfare, appeared to rule that cooperative apartment owners are saddled with an unavoidable risk of loss. That is, if a lender alleges that the owners have defaulted, and then conducts a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, the former owners are left with few remedies.
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Co-Op Purchaser Not Entitled to Cancel Contract
Stipulation of Settlement Did Not Foreclose Warranty of Habitability Claim
Questions of Fact About Mitchell-Lama Succession Rights
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Taking Was for a Public Purpose and Failure to Comply With Public Hearing Requirement Did Not Invalidate Taking
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Fact Questions About Expansion of Nonconforming Use
Subdivision Improperly Classified As Type II Action Under SEQRA
ZBA Entitled to Approve Permit for Building Larger Than One Depicted In Approved Site Plan