Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Landlord & Tenant Law
Prior Landlord's Purchaser of Loft Tenant's Improvements Exempted Unit from Rent Regulation
Aurora Associates v. Locatelli, NYLJ 2/16/22, p. 19, col. 2, Court of Appeals (4-2 decision; majority opinion by Garcia, J; dissenting opinion by Wilson, J.).
In loft landlord's summary holdover proceeding against tenant, landlord appealed from the Appellate Division's affirmance of a grant of summary judgment to tenant. The Court of Appeals reversed and granted summary judgment to landlord, holding that prior landlord's purchase of prior tenant's improvements exempted the unit from rent regulation.
The subject building was registered as an interim multiple dwelling in 1983. In 1998, prior owner purchased the improvement and rights related to the disputed apartment. Prior owner then sold the building to current owner, who leased the unit for $4,250 (up from the $440 the unit had previously generated). In 2009, current tenant leased the unit for $4,000 for a five-year term, and in 2014, the parties extended the lease for an additional year at a rent of $4,200. Tenant continued to pay that rent on a month-to-month basis until 2016, when landlord sent tenant a notice of termination. When tenant refused to vacate, landlord brought this summary holdover proceeding. Housing Court granted summary judgment to tenant, concluding that the apartment had become subject to rent stabilization under the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). The Appellate Term and the Appellate Division affirmed, and landlord appealed.
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.