Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Editor's Note: In 2010, New York's Legislature enacted Domestic Relations Law (DRL) ' 236, Part B, subd. 5-a, in 2010. The statute, among other things, requires that agreements concerning temporary maintenance that deviate from its formula must, to be be enforceable, contain calculations for the amount that would have been set by the formula, along with a recitation that that amount is the presumed correct number, yet the parties deviated from it for reasons enumerated in the agreement. This statute's language is identical to that in The Child Support Standards Act, Family Court Act ' 413 subd. 1(h). But, although there are many cases concerning the viability of agreements that deviate from the child support guidelines, few judicial opinions have interpreted whether temporary maintenance agreements that lack the required opt-out provisions are enforceable.
The author continues here with more suggested arguments for saving a temporary maintenance agreement that does not contain the language and recitations required by subdivision 5-a(f) of DRL ' 236B. He begins with Point 3.
Continuing our discussion on defenses:
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?