Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Personal Jurisdiction over Florida Husband Lacking
The First Department affirmed an order dismissing a divorce action because the lower court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a Florida resident husband whose contacts with New York were insufficient to show that the matrimonial domicile was ever in New York. Senhart v. Senhart, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5300 (2d Dept. 4/26/05).
The plaintiff wife commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief in Supreme Court, Kings County. Defendant husband moved for and was granted dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(8) and 302(b) for lack of personal jurisdiction, as he currently resides in Florida. The plaintiff contended on appeal that the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in the New York courts on the ground that New York was the matrimonial domicile of the parties prior to their separation (see CPLR 302(b); Senhart v. Senhart, 4 Misc. 3d 862).
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.
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.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
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.
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?