Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Everything contained in this issue in an easy-to-use list.
Features
When the City of New York sells property subject to statutorily authorized conditions, what language in the deed is necessary to ensure that the conditions bind subsequent purchasers? That question confronted the Court of Appeals in <i>328 Owners Corp. v. 300 West 86 Oaks Corp</i>. (NYLJ 4/4/07, p. 18, col. 1), in which the Court of Appeals held that successor purchasers were bound by deed language restricting the original purchaser to use of the property for rehabilitation or conservation of the existing building or construction of one to four unit dwellings.
Ontario was the first province in Canada to adopt a UCC Article 9 type registration system called the '<i>Personal Property Security Act</i>' or PPSA. During the early 1990s, Ontario refreshed its legislation, and other Canadian provinces soon followed with their own acts that were modeled on but not the same as the Ontario PPSA. As with any legislation, certain changes made by other provinces turned out to be superior to the act that it modeled.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Nearly one year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a pre-emption on filing failure-to-warn actions over federally approved drugs, rulings across the nation show a clear division over the issue.
Features
Last May's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006) ' which held that when a Medicaid benefits recipient settles with a tortfeasor, states seeking recoupment of funds for monies expended on their medical care may do so only from that part of a settlement that was designated as being for past medical expenses ' has so far led to very few reported decisions on the subject. However, two recent cases in New York have applied the teachings of the decision to find that some malpractice claimants who are also Medicaid benefits recipients and who settle with those who allegedly injured them must be allowed to keep for themselves more of the proceeds of their claims.