The Court of Appeals recently confronted a significant zoning issue: When, and on what terms, can the state or a state agency transfer to a private entity its exemption from local zoning restrictions? In <i>Matter of Crown Communication New York, Inc. v. Department of Transportation</i> (NYLJ 2/14/05, p. 19, col. 4), a divided court held that telecommunications towers erected on state land were immune from local zoning regulations even when the much of the space on the towers had been leased to private companies. The court's decision, however, raises as many questions as it resolves.
Although New York courts have long-recognized that "an easement created by grant may be extinguished by adverse possession" (<i>See Harlem Commonwealth Council, Inc. v. Thomas Memorial Wesleyan Methodist Church</i>, 10 A.D.3d 572 (1st Dep't 2004); <i>Spiegel v. Ferraro</i>, 73 N.Y.2d 622, 625 (1989); <i>Gerbig v. Zumpano</i>, 7 N.Y.2d 327 (1960)), a different rule has been applied to "unopened" easements -- <i>ie</i>, easements that have been created by grant but have remained unused. Generally, a possession will not be deemed adverse to an unopened easement or right of way until three conditions have been satisfied. These conditions are: 1) the need by the easement holder for the right of way has arisen; 2) a demand has been made by the easement holder that the right of way be opened; and 3) the servient tenant (property owner) has refused the demand. <i>Castle Associates v. Schwartz</i>, 63 A.D.2d 481 (2d Dep't 1978).
Leasing real property to a foreign entity presents a special set of concerns for landlords, and those who are leasing real property to a foreign entity should carefully evaluate these concerns ' and, where appropriate, address them in the lease. This article highlights the special considerations that a landlord encounters when leasing to a foreign entity.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
