Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When Is a Settlement Binding?
On April 5, 2007, the Court of Appeals voided a decade-old court-ordered stipulation that had settled a contested litigation over a rent-stabilized apartment. The landlord in Riverside Syndicate Inc. v. Munroe, et al. 10 N.Y.3d 18, was allowed to renege on a settlement on the theory that the stipulation violated public policy and unlawfully waived the tenant's rights. The ramifications of this ruling are extraordinary. A party to a court ordered settlement can reap the benefits for as long as is opportune (the court ruled that there is no applicable statute of limitations). The abiding party is left to try to recoup those benefits that it gave under the agreement ' in the Riverside case a decade of rent and substantial improvements to the apartment. And both parties will be left to undo all that occurred based on a now voided settlement.
The Case
In 1995, Riverside sought to evict the tenants from a rent-stabilized apartment they were subletting, allegedly illegally. The apartment that was next door to tenants' rent-stabilized apartment, and tenants had been subletting this contiguous apartment for several years with the written permission of Riverside. When the legal sublet ended, Riverside let the tenants remain and took rent for another two years without objection. In response to landlord's petition, tenants moved for summary judgment, relying in part on the 'illusory tenant' doctrine and asserting a right to remain as rent stabilized tenants. While the motion was pending, the case was settled, in court, with counsel for Riverside and the tenants, and with the judge before whom the motion was pending so ordering the stipulation.
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?