Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The latest cases of importance to you and your practice.
RPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.
Features
Here are some tips for attorneys and clients faced with instituting or defending child abduction proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, whether in the United States or internationally.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
The first of the criminal trials based on the alleged corruption uncovered last year in Brooklyn matrimonial court began Aug. 17 with the prosecution of a court officer and of Judge Gerald P. Garson's former clerk. The criminal case against Garson, who is accused of accepting bribes from an attorney to steer cases to him, is expected to go to trial next year. There will be a delay in Garson's case's commencement because the prosecution will probably appeal dismissal of six of the seven counts brought against him, including the charge of fixing case outcomes.
On Aug. 17, a bankruptcy judge in Washington State became the first federal judge in the country to rule on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. ' 7. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul B. Snyder held in <i>In re Kandu</i>, No. 03-51312, 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 1233 (8/17/04) that DOMA was not unconstitutional. And, while it may seem that a law this contentious should have garnered at least a few case-law decisions in the 8 years following its enactment, the <i>Kandu</i> case has become the unlikely first because previous litigants lacked standing; they had not actually been married to a same-sex partner.