Since Jan. 6, 2012, new rules have been in effect regarding removal and venue procedures for federal litigation. The impact of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 in business disputes, including franchising, is gradually being felt as actions are filed in federal district courts or removed from state court to federal courts. This article outlines some of the key changes and their potential relevance for franchisors and franchisees.
Effective March 15, compliance with the DOJ's 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards) was required for any alterations to existing facilities subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and barrier removal.
When prominent plaintiffs' lawyers applaud a "landmark change in the law," prudence calls for reflection. Such is the case with the recent New York Court of Appeals decision clarifying the scope of the Martin Act.
Just as an insured should not delay in providing notice of a claim while investigating other possible sources of coverage, an insurer should not delay in disclaiming on late notice grounds — a condition precedent to coverage — while it investigates other possible grounds for disclaimer.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
This article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.
That the pace of change is "accelerating" is surely an understatement. What seemed almost a near certainty a year ago — that law firms would fully and permanently embrace work-from-home — is experiencing a seeming reversal. While many firms have, in fact, embraced hybrid operations, the meaning of hybrid has evolved from "office optional," to an average required 2 days a week, to now many firms coming out with four-day work week mandates — this time, with teeth.
This year at Legalweek, there was little doubt on what the annual takeaway topic would be. As much as I tried to avoid it for fear of beating the proverbial dead horse, it was impossible not to talk about generative AI, ChatGPT, and all that goes with it. Some fascinating discussions were had and many aspects of AI were uncovered.
RPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.
