Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The scenario is common enough: A landlord brings a proceeding against a long-term rent-regulated tenant, sometimes elderly or infirm, who has fallen behind in rent. The tenant struggles to obtain the money, often from slow-moving governmental or charitable sources. “Time of the essence” payment stipulations are entered into, and then violated. A judgment of possession is issued, and multiple stays are obtained. Finally, the tenant offers payment, sometimes pre-eviction, and sometimes post-eviction. What is a court to do?
As two recent cases prove, there is no clear answer. In Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v Pickett, 135 AD3d 518 (1st Dept 2016), a post-eviction case, the majority affirmed Appellate Term's order restoring the tenant to possession, with Justice David B. Saxe issuing a lengthy concurring opinion that called the current state of the law into question. In contrast, in the pre-eviction case of 191 St. Assoc. LLC v Cruz, 50 Misc3d 137(A) (App Term 1st Dept 2016), Appellate Term majority authorized a tenant's eviction, over a lengthy dissent by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan.
Lafayette Boynton
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?