Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
City Parkland: Invalid Lease or Permissible License?
When may a New York municipality authorize commercial use of parkland without express authorization of the state legislature? That question recently reached the Court of Appeals in Union Square Park Community Coalition v. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYLJ 2/21/14), in which the court upheld an agreement between the city and a private party authorizing the latter to operate a seasonal restaurant in Union Square Park. In upholding the agreement, the court had to grapple with two limitations on municipal control of public parkland: the public trust doctrine and the prohibition on alienation of parkland without the permission of the state legislature.
The Public Trust Doctrine
Suppose a municipality itself decides to operate a restaurant in a public park. Although the municipality has not made any transfer of parkland, the mere use of parkland for a non-park purpose can constitute a violation of the public trust doctrine. Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 623, is illustrative. Pressed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New York City set out to design and build a water filtration plant. The city's preferred location was the Mosholu Golf Course in Van Cortlandt Park. The design would restore the golf course and other park uses once the city completed the underground plant, but construction would close 29 acres of parkland, including the golf course, for more than five years. The State of New York, concerned citizens, and community groups sought to enjoin development of the plant on the ground that the public trust doctrine would prohibit construction without approval from the state legislature. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that because park area are impressed with a public trust, use of parkland for other than park purposes, either for a period of years or permanently, requires state legislative approval.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?