Landlord & Tenant
In-depth analysis of recent important rulings.
Cooperatives & Condominiums
A look at a recent interesting case.
Are e-Mail Signatures in New York Real Estate Transactions Legally Binding Yet?
New York State remains one of the few in which there is no legislation allowing for the use of electronic signatures for the purpose of creating a contract for the sale of real property. New York case law is divided on this issue, and thus fails to provide a clear answer as to whether an e-mail signature or other electronic signature may be used for documents related to real property.
Features
Index
Everything in this issue, listed in an easy-to-read format.
Decisions of Interest
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Lawyer and Judge Shopping, and the Matrimonial Bar
Are concepts of confidentiality and disclosure mutually exclusive? With the concepts we have discussed in the last two installments in mind, some have argued that there is really no issue of confidentiality left to protect in a matrimonial case.
Features
Senate Backs 21 New Judges in Family Court
Seven new Family Court judges in New York City would be among 21 judgeships created in Family Courts statewide under legislation approved by the state Senate. The additional judgeships for New York City would be the first in the city's Family Court since 1991 and the most significant increase statewide on the Family Court bench in at least three decades.
Features
A Proactive Approach Toward Estate Planning
Some states have legalized same-sex marriage while others recognize or grant certain rights to same-sex couples. The issue is critical and hotly debated because marriage confers certain benefits under state and federal law that are generally denied to same-sex couples. Many of these protections and benefits pertain to estate planning.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar InvestigationsThis article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next FrontierMost experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.Read More ›
- The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance ProgramsThe parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.Read More ›
- In the SpotlightOn May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.Read More ›
