Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In June 2024, the Court of Appeals decided Liggett v. Lewitt Realty LLC, — NY3d –, 2024 NY Slip Op 03378 (2024), reversing the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, and holding that a so-ordered stipulation of settlement entered into by a landlord and future tenant more than two decades ago, to settle a holdover proceeding in March 2000, was void as against public policy, and therefore could not provide a basis in the 2021 action for the landlord to establish that the subject apartment was properly deregulated from rent stabilization decades earlier. The ruling from New York's highest state court, although straightforward on its face, has important implications for both long-existing settlement agreements and when considering drafting future agreements settling disputes in the context of the Rent Stabilization Law.
The case concerned an apartment that was initially subject to rent control, with Edward Brown listed as the rent-controlled tenant in 1984. When Brown died in 1998, with a monthly rent of just $141.23, the landlord commenced a summary holdover proceeding against the surviving occupant, Edward McKinney, who claimed a right to succeed to Brown's rent-controlled tenancy. Generally, when a rent-controlled tenant dies or the apartment becomes vacant, either a permitted family member succeeds to the rent-controlled tenancy, or the apartment is decontrolled and becomes subject to rent stabilization. In the latter case, the initial rent-stabilized legal regulated rent for the apartment is required to be the first market rent agreed to by the landlord and the tenant in a lease agreement, subject to the tenant's right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA) with the Division of Homes and Community Renewal (DHCR) challenging the rent as the actual fair market rent. The right to file a FMRA ensures that the first rent is a fair market rent.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.