Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Landlord Harassment of Commercial Tenants
Last month, we considered the problem of landlord harassment of commercial tenants, looking first at a law that recently went on the books in New York City to provide a private right of action by tenants against offending landlords; known as the Non-Residential Tenant Harassment law, it is codified as Chapter 9, Title 22 of the New York City Administrative Code. We also began discussion of a case out of bankruptcy court, In re Lansaw v. Zokaites, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 106 (2015) (affirmed in Zokaites v. Lansaw, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33118 (W.D. Pa., Mar. 15, 2016), which deals with one landlord's bad behavior toward his commercial tenant. As discussed last month, in Lansaw, the tenants (and bankruptcy petitioners) complained of certain harassment that occurred prior to the filing of their bankruptcy petition. They failed to obtain relief on those claims, however, as the court found that the landlord's behavior pre-petition, though reprehensible, fell short of crossing the line into lawlessness. Let us turn now to the court's analysis of the landlord's post–bankruptcy-petition behavior.
After the Filing
The post-petition harassing behavior charged by Garth and Deborah Lansaw against landlord Frank Zokaites encompassed several incidents. In one, they said Zokaites entered the leased premises without their permission, to take photos of the property he claimed he was entitled to seize from them for back rent, in accordance with the “Notice of Distraint” he had served upon them. The landlord later padlocked the Landsaws' daycare center's doors, interrupting the operation of their business for several days. Finally, Zokaites wrote a letter to the owner of property the petitioners intended to lease when they moved out of his own property, in which he threatened to sue this person if he rented to the Lansaws. The question whether these actions violated the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Act had been adjudicated prior to the proceedings before Bankruptcy Judge Thomas P. Agreseti, and Zokaites had been found at fault. Therefore, the only issue before Judge Agreseti was that of the damages that Zokaites should pay to the Lansaws for violation of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision, and any bankruptcy petitioner injured by the willful violation of the automatic stay “shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorney fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1).
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.
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.
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.
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?