Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Disabled and the Co-op Approval Process
Co-op boards have become accustomed to having their process for approving prospective applicants significantly insulated from review. But boards and applicants must be acutely aware of the effect of the laws protecting the disabled as boards are subject to, and their particular building rules do not trump, the disability laws. It attracted front-page attention in the New York Law Journal (an affiliate publication of this newsletter) on June 20, 2007, when a Manhattan court concluded that a co-op board had exceeded statutory bounds by rescinding approval after learning of a prospective purchaser's disability. In Hirschmann v Hassapoyannes (NYLJ June 25, 2007, p.18, col. 3), it was held that a board may not inquire, directly or indirectly, about an applicant's disability. Nor may a Board punish an applicant by pulling its approval for not disclosing a disability ' even if the board argues that the disclosure of the disability was relevant to them during the board interview.
The Co-op Interview in General
The co-op interview process in New York has generated legendary tales spanning those rejected ' such as celebrities and politicians ' to the process itself, e.g., voluminous application forms and interviews of prospective purchasers' companion animals. To an increasing extent, condominiums engage in similar applicant reviews. For the most part, boards enjoy and exercise wide discretion under the business judgment rule so that their decisions are relatively free from oversight. But boards nonetheless may not violate discrimination laws in either the process or the result.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?