Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Easy-to-read listing of everything contained in this issue.
Decided recently by Westchester Supreme Court, <i>Mamaroneck Beach & Yacht Club, Inc. v. Fraioli</i> raises a much litigated issue in New York: When can a municipality apply a newly enacted ordinance to a pending application by a developer?
Sona Laser Centers and Sona MedSpas is locked in an increasingly bitter dispute with some of its original franchisees, involving not only typical franchise issues but also the franchisees' allegations that at least one of the services they offer to customers, a laser treatment for hair removal, does not work. While franchisees have received considerable favorable publicity in the fight to date, Sona executives say that the actions of the franchisees belie some of their complaints, and Sona remains committed to building a national chain of spas.
Features
Franchisors that own intellectual property (patents, copyrights, or trademarks) for use as part of the franchise system have long been confronted with an unfortunate and misguided presumption that their intellectual property rights automatically gave them market power — an essential element of many antitrust claims — in the system's patented, copyrighted, or trademarked products and services. From an antitrust perspective, this presumption, although rebuttable, created a significant hurdle for franchisors accused of an illegal tying arrangement — which requires, as a preliminary element, proof of market power in the allegedly tying product (often the franchise itself).
Last month, we explained that a matrimonial action may be commenced by the filing of a summons with notice, and without a verified complaint. Because New York requires fault allegations in the complaint, it had become common practice to stipulate to defer the service of a complaint. We asked the question: 'Can the commencement date of a prior discontinued or dismissed action be used as the date to classify property, or as the valuation date of marital assets in a subsequent divorce action? In Part Two, we continue the discussion.
The Court of Appeals heard spirited arguments May 31 on whether New York should become the second state to legalize gay marriage. The judges did little to tip their hands as to how they would vote, greeting both sides with wide-ranging, skeptical questions. The arguments covered the four joined decisions that each held that New York state law precludes same-sex couples from marrying: the First Department case <i>Hernandez v. Robles</i>, 805 NYS 2d 354 and the Third Department cases <i>Seymour v. Holcomb</i>, 811 NYS 2d 134; <i>Matter of Kane v. Marsolais</i>, 808 NYS 2d 566; and <i>Samuels v. New York State Department of Health</i>, 811 NYS 2d 136. Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt recused himself, reportedly because his daughter, a Los Angeles attorney, has worked on same-sex marriages cases in New Jersey and California. That left only six judges to hear arguments.
Features
One of the least understood areas of law that New York matrimonial lawyers may encounter is the equitable distribution of military benefits. This is largely due to the relatively small number of military personnel who have traditionally resided in New York, the even smaller number of military personnel who divorce here, the paucity of the decisions dealing with them, and the lack of sufficient interest to spark Continuing Legal Education providers in this state to devote attention to the subject. Still, there are more than a few military personnel in New York, so any attorney may one day find him/herself having to decipher the intricacies of federal military retirement and disability laws on behalf of a client. Therefore, an understanding of each of the military benefits that can be distributed upon divorce and the circumstances under which they can be distributed may one day prove useful.