Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Landlord & Tenant Law
Questions of Fact Remain About Whether Landlord Had Released Corporate Tenant from Liability
Trigon 52 LLC v. SDKD Enterprises, Inc., 2022 WL 961539, AppDiv, First Dept. (memorandum opinion)
In landlord's action for breach of a commercial lease, both parties appealed from Supreme Court's denial of their respective summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that questions of fact remained about the liability of the tenant's principal, and about whether landlord had released the corporate tenant from liability.
The corporate tenant dissolved in 2013. In 2015, landlord and corporate tenant entered into a lease modification agreement. Landlord contended that the modification was not part of the corporate defendant's windup activities, and that the modification entitled landlord to hold the tenant's principal personally liable. Corporate tenant noted that landlord had participated in drafting documents authorizing assignment of the lease to a nonparty assignee. Under the language of the assignment, the assignee assumed all of the tenant's obligations under the lease modification and landlord released tenant's security. Moreover, a 2019 estoppel certificate stated that the lease represented the entire agreement between landlord and the assignee, with no mention of the corporate tenant. Based on these facts, tenant contended that the landlord had impliedly released tenant from its obligations under the lease. Supreme Court disagreed and denied summary judgment to both parties.
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.