LJN Newsletters

Recent cases you need to know.

A look at a recent important case.

Notable cases and recent rulings.

Notable recent cases.

Recent rulngs of importance to you and your practice.

In its April 19, 2005 decision in 520 East 81st Street Associates v. State of New York, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that principles of just compensation require that claimant be awarded compound interest as part of its takings damages. While various Federal and state courts had previously awarded compound interest under such circumstances, 520 East 81st Street marks the first time that a New York State Court has done so.

Life Insurance is an important matter in most divorces. There are a host of issues that are not addressed in the typical negotiation. Consider the following sample insurance clause from a Property Settlement Agreement [PSA]: "The husband shall maintain life insurance for the wife having an aggregate death benefit of $250,000. Said obligation shall be terminated if the husband's obligation to pay alimony is modified/terminated. The husband shall maintain life insurance having an aggregate death benefit of $250,000 for the benefit of the unemancipated children. Said benefit shall be reduced by $75,000 upon the emancipation of the first child and again upon the emancipation of the second child. The obligation to maintain any life insurance for the children shall terminate upon the emancipation of all Three [3] children." There are many important decisions and considerations not addressed in a simplistic -- and typical -- clause like this, and practitioners need practical recommendations and advice on how better to address life insurance issues. This article provides both.

Anyone who has handled a custody or equitable distribution case knows that expert witness testimony may be necessary at trial with regard to the disputed custody or valuation issues. The Civil Practice Law and Rules require counsel to lay a preliminary foundation for the introduction of expert testimony at trial, if a proper demand is made. However, many attorneys never make such a demand, so their adversary is free to offer such testimony. Attorneys who serve a demand are often successful in precluding such testimony when their demand goes unanswered.