Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Yellowstone' Injunctions: Navigating the Wild West of Commercial Lease Disputes
The Yellowstone injunction is implicated in nearly every lease for commercial real property in the state of New York, yet most landlords and tenants do not know what it is or how it affects them. Below is a succinct overview of its implications so that commercial landlords and tenants can better navigate lease disputes.
Stopping the Clock on a Cure Period
Yellowstone injunctions take their name not from the popular neo-Western drama series but from the New York Court of Appeals case of First National Stores v. Yellowstone Shopping Center that created this limited-purpose injunction. In that case, the landlord and tenant disagreed about who was responsible for installing a sprinkler system, which the court ultimately decided was the tenant's responsibility. Although the tenant was able and willing to make the installation once the court said so, the tenant had not asked to pause the cure period, and the landlord had terminated the lease for default. New York's highest court decided it was not empowered to extend the tenant's deadline to cure its default and upheld the lease termination.
This case conceptualized and gave rise to the remedy referred to as a Yellowstone injunction. Its purpose is to stop the running of the applicable cure period: it prevents a commercial landlord from prematurely terminating a lease for default until a court decides whether the alleged default is proper or not.
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.