Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In a rare victory for a telecommuter in a "convenience of the employer" rule case, an administrative law judge has held against the state Division of Taxation and said New York has no business taxing all of the income of a man who worked from his home in New Canaan, CT.
Features
I see a lot of law firm strategic plans that talk about "establishing a position of dominance" or "being preeminent" in an area of practice, an industry or a geographic area. In my mind these are precisely the kind of market-driven, externally focused goals that law firms should be setting for themselves. The obvious question, however, is how does a law firm know whether or not it has created a position of dominance?
Features
The Women's Bar Association of the State of New York has joined the New York State Bar Association in lobbying for a no-fault divorce law. Mindy Zlotogura, president of the 3300-member women's bar group, said that she planned to lead a delegation to Albany to meet with key legislators about changing the law. The decision to support the state bar initiative represents a sea change for the women's bar, which has traditionally opposed no-fault divorce measures.
In last month's newsletter, we discussed two 1970s New York decisions that held marriages between transsexuals and persons of their birth sex to be invalid. No recent cases on this issue have been brought in this State, so we are left to ponder what would be the outcomes of those cases in present-day New York. Recently, however, the Florida Court of Appeal relied on those old New York cases -- <i>Frances B. v. Mark B.</i>, 78 Misc. 2d 112 (1974) and <i>Anonymous v. Anonymous</i>, 67 Misc. 2d 982 (1971) -- when it decided that marriage in Florida between a female-to-male transsexual and a woman was invalid at its inception. In light of recent social trends in the State of New York, was that reliance justified?
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Jessica Gonzales against the city of Castle Rock, CO. Cert. granted by <i>Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales</i>, 160 L. Ed. 2d 316 (U.S. 2004). This civil rights case, which is being watched closely by municipal governments and women's rights advocates nationwide, asks whether a court-issued domestic restraining order, whose enforcement is mandated by a state statute, creates a property interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held it does not, and dismissed the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Features
My insurance pays dividends. Sounds like a good idea. Some insurance companies offer "dividend plans" that allow a policyholder to obtain dividends from the insurance company, often based on the loss experience under the policyholder's insurance program. If losses are low, the insurance company promises to pay the policyholder dividends. Dividend plans do have their pitfalls, however, as a number of Kemper policyholders have discovered. In an undated letter to policyholders, Michael A. Coutu, the acting president and chief executive officer of the Kemper Insurance Companies, stated that as a result of Kemper's financial condition, Kemper "will not declare any dividends in the foreseeable future" meaning that "a payment due Kemper may be larger than anticipated or that a return or credit may be less than expected, despite underlying losses." As a result, these "loss-sensitive" dividend plans have not always performed as expected.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
On April 5, 2005, the New York Court of Appeals upheld long-standing New York law that a policyholder's late notice defeats coverage under a commercial liability policy without any specific requirement that an insurer demonstrate prejudice. The court disagreed with any assessment that the "no prejudice" rule was a doctrine whose time had come. It rejected a policyholder's request to apply a prejudice rule to "notice of a suit in commercial policies where the notice was admittedly late." <i>See Argo Corporation, et al. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance Co.,</i> (N.Y. April 5, 2005). In a separate opinion issued on the same day as <i>Argo,</i> the court did apply a "prejudice" standard in the limited context of supplemental underinsured motorist ("SUM") coverage where late notice of a SUM claim followed timely notice of the underlying accident. <i>Rekemeyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,</i> (N.Y. April 5, 2005).