Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Special facts is a court-created equitable doctrine that allows a land use applicant to avoid the impact of a change of zone enacted while the application is pending, by showing significant governmental delay of the application together with proof that but for the delay, the landowner would have been able to vest in its use before the zoning was changed. In November 2013, the Court of Appeals decided Rocky Point Drive-In v. Town of Brookhaven (Rocky Point), a case that the plaintiff (represented by the author) hoped would not only allow it to prevail, but would also clarify the special facts doctrine.
The Court of Appeals decided that the plaintiff had no case, in a decision that highlights, but unfortunately does not clarify, New York's policy on when plaintiffs may take advantage of the special facts doctrine.
Factual Background
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.
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.
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.
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?