Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Airbnb Problem in Residential Housing
Pursuant to L. 2010 ch. 225 (“Chapter 225″), the New York State Legislature amended the Multiple Dwelling Law and various other statutes to crack down on landlords running so-called illegal hotels. The Legislature determined that certain landlords, rather than renting vacant apartments and rooms to tenants at regulated rents, recognized that it was more lucrative to use Airbnb and similar platforms to rent rooms on a nightly basis at market rates. As the Second Circuit observed in Dexter 345 Inc. v Cuomo, 663 F3d 59, 62 (2d Cir 2011):
The stated purposes of Chapter 225 were to (1) prevent building owners from circumventing the strict fire safety standards applicable to hotels; (2) prevent 'unfair competition to legitimate hotels that have made substantial investments to comply' with buildings codes; (3) protect the rights of permanent occupants who 'must endure the inconvenience of hotel occupancy in their buildings;' and (4) preserve the supply of affordable permanent housing.
Ironically, some rent-regulated tenants ' who are intended beneficiaries of Chapter 225 ' got into the Airbnb act as well. These tenants realized that there were substantial profits to be made by renting their apartments, or individual rooms within their apartments, to short-term transients at market rates, well above the regulated rents they were paying to their landlords. Although an individual tenant could not turn a building into an “illegal hotel,” the tenant could certainly turn a single apartment into a bed and breakfast.
This article details the City's efforts in one case to enjoin a business that facilitated the creation of illegal hotels, and a landlord's efforts in another case to eject a rent-controlled tenant who was using Airbnb to rent rooms within her four bedroom apartment overlooking Central Park.
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?