Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>Yellowstone</i></b> Injunctions When Prompt Cure Is Impossible
Most real estate practitioners are well acquainted with the Yellowstone injunction and its importance in preserving the status quo while allegations that a commercial tenant has breached its lease are litigated. For the uninitiated, Supreme Court will issue a Yellowstone injunction tolling the running of a cure period and staying the landlord's efforts to evict the tenant, pending the litigation and resolution of the underlying action, where the plaintiff: 1) holds a commercial lease; 2) was served with a default notice threatening to terminate the tenancy; 3) sought a Yellowstone injunction prior to the expiration of the cure period set forth in the notice; and 4) is prepared to, and maintains the ability to, cure the alleged lease violation(s) by any means short of vacating the subject premises. See, e.g., Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v. 600 Third Ave. Associates, 93 NY2d 508.
Timeliness of the Motion
While all four factors must be satisfied, the third Yellowstone prong — timeliness of the motion — is especially important. Where a tenant fails to seek a Yellowstone injunction prior to the expiration of the cure period set forth in the default notice, the motion will be denied, the lease will terminate and Supreme Court will be powerless to reinstate the tenancy. See, e.g., Three Amigos SJL Rest., Inc. v. 250 West 43 Owner LLC, 144 AD3d 490; 166 Enterprises Corp. v I G Second Generation Partners, L.P., 81 AD3d 154. One day, or even one hour, can make all the difference between saving a long-term commercial tenancy into which vast resources have been invested, and subjecting the tenant to possible eviction in a holdover proceeding.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?