Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This article discusses a more equal road to succession in New York's regulated apartments after Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. __, 2015WL213646 (2015), and the Marriage Equality Act. In Obergefell, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples. In New York, the right of a tenant not named on a lease to keep one's regulated apartment when the tenant named on the lease dies or vacates is in many cases a valuable right that affects whether one can remain in his home, or even in his city. Under the Rent Stabilization Code, spouses of a tenants of record do not share such a concern, as they have the automatic right to be added to the lease while residing there with the tenant of record. However, before New York's legalization of same-sex marriage, a gay person living with a tenant of record as a couple in a rent-regulated apartment did not have this automatic right to be added to a lease as a spouse, and could only claim that right through succession after the tenant of record died or vacated the apartment. The New York case of 360 Associates v. Hyers and Pederson, N.Y. County Civ.Ct. Index 72743/13 (2015), illustrates the resulting problems and the impact of Obergefell.
The Pederson Case
In 1988, Michael Pederson moved into the rent-stabilized apartment of Kemper Hyers, who was his partner of over 20 years. They had all the usual indicia of a marriage including shared accounts, attendance at family functions, and in general an emotional and financial interdependence. They wanted to marry, but were not legally allowed to do so. In 1993, they obtained a domestic partnership certificate with the City of New York and had a ceremony and celebration, with all the hallmarks of a wedding.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.