Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Development
Jurisdictional Dispute Not Ripe for Judicial Review
Application of Grahel Associates, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYLJ 2/14/11
Supreme Ct., Queens Cty.
(Markey, J.)
Landowner brought an article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that DEC has jurisdiction over landowner's parcel. The court dismissed the petition as unripe for review.
Landowner owns a parcel of land adjacent to the East River in White-stone, Queens. Landowner filed plans with the city to subdivide the site into ten separate parcels for industrial use, and the city approved the plans. DEC staff then inspected the site and concluded that landowner was conducting activities in a regulated area without the necessary permit, and mailed a notice of violation, contending that landowner was wrongfully filling tidal wetlands and adjacent area. Landowner contended that DEC had no jurisdiction because his parcel was not a wetland or adjacent area. DEC disagreed and determined that a wetlands permit is required. Landowner then brought this article 78 proceeding challenging the determination.
In dismissing the proceeding, the court concluded that DEC's jurisdictional determination did not inflict the type of concrete injury required for a finding of finality. The court noted that DEC had not imposed any fines or initiated any enforcement proceedings, and concluded that the proceeding was premature. As a result, the court dismissed the petition.
Jurisdictional Dispute Not Ripe for Judicial Review
Application of Grahel Associates, LLC v.
NYLJ 2/14/11
Supreme Ct., Queens Cty.
(Markey, J.)
Landowner brought an article 78 proceeding challenging a determination by the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that DEC has jurisdiction over landowner's parcel. The court dismissed the petition as unripe for review.
Landowner owns a parcel of land adjacent to the East River in White-stone, Queens. Landowner filed plans with the city to subdivide the site into ten separate parcels for industrial use, and the city approved the plans. DEC staff then inspected the site and concluded that landowner was conducting activities in a regulated area without the necessary permit, and mailed a notice of violation, contending that landowner was wrongfully filling tidal wetlands and adjacent area. Landowner contended that DEC had no jurisdiction because his parcel was not a wetland or adjacent area. DEC disagreed and determined that a wetlands permit is required. Landowner then brought this article 78 proceeding challenging the determination.
In dismissing the proceeding, the court concluded that DEC's jurisdictional determination did not inflict the type of concrete injury required for a finding of finality. The court noted that DEC had not imposed any fines or initiated any enforcement proceedings, and concluded that the proceeding was premature. As a result, the court dismissed the petition.
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?