Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Not long ago there was a movement afoot to turn co-ops into condominiums due to the supposed benefits they offered, including the lessened economic interdependence resulting from absence of any blanket mortgage or real estate tax lien. (See, e.g., Siegler R: The Feasibility of Co-op to Condo Conversion. NYLJ, Mar. 5, 1997, p. 3) Although such transformations never gained traction, in recent years condominiums have become market darlings (accounting for nearly all new construction and conversions), most notably because of their perceived let-freedom-reign philosophy, particularly the ability of owners to buy, sell, and lease without board intervention. Yet such relative independence may soon be more illusory than real as condo boards seek to assume powers traditionally reserved for their co-op brethren, and unit owners find themselves lacking legal protections available to shareholders.
Despite the fact that the Condo Act (NY Real Prop. Law Sec. 339-v(2)(a)) expressly allows bylaw provisions governing the sale, leasing, or transfer of units, until recently boards took a hands-off policy, due to the potentially overriding prohibition against unreasonable restraints on alienation applicable to real estate. Other jurisdictions with more developed bodies of condo law, however, have recognized that such communal living requires a greater degree of restriction upon individual unit owners. Florida courts, for example, have upheld both partial (see, e.g.,Woodside Village Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Jahren, 806 So.2d 452) and total bans on leasing (see, e.g., Flagler Federal Savings & Loan Assn. of Miami v. Crestview Towers Condominium Assn, Inc., 595 So.2d 198) whether contained in the original declaration (Hidden Harbor Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So.2d 637) or subsequent amendments (see Woodside Village, supra). New York courts incrementally have inched their way toward this modern view, first upholding the right of condo boards to require owners to offer a right of first refusal before renting (Bd. of Managers of Village House v. Frazier, 81 A.d.2d 760), and then expressly allowing them to impose a blanket leasing ban (Four Bros. Homes at Heartland Condominium II v. Gerbino, 262 A.D.2d 279), even to charge fines for breaking the leasing rules (Bd. of Managers of Plymouth Village Condominium v. Mahaney, 272 A.D.2d 283).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.