Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The First Department's recent decision in Pultz v. Economakis, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 22, 2007, at 18, col. 1, has garnered a remarkable amount of press coverage for what is a fundamentally unremarkable case. The decision primarily stands for the humble proposition that a court must interpret a statute in accordance with its clear and unambiguous language. Nevertheless, the First Department's steadfast defense of an owner's right to recover one of more apartments for his or her own personal use merits further analysis.
Facts
Alistair and Catherine Economakis own a 15-unit, rent-stabilized building in the East Village. They decided that they would attempt to recover all 15 stabilized apartments so that they could convert the building into a single-family house. They settled with several tenants, and brought Civil Court holdover proceedings against five tenants whose stabilized leases had expired. The owners proceeded under Section 26-511(c)(9)(b) of the Rent Stabilization Law ('RSL'), as implemented by Section 2524.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code ('RSC'), which allows an owner to proceed in Civil Court to recover 'one or more dwelling units' for the owner's 'personal use and occupancy.'
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
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.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?