Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Over the past several years, rent-stabilized tenants have turned to Airbnb and similar services to monetize their below-market leases and earn extra income. Landlords seeking to evict such tenants for profiteering have been largely successful. This article examines the state of “Airbnb” jurisprudence to date, focusing on the First Department's recent 3-2 decision in Goldstein v Lipetz (150 AD3d 562 [1st Dept 2017]).
The Equities
The theoretical underpinning of all profiteering cases was set forth over 30 years ago in a much-cited quotation from Continental Towers Ltd. Partnership v Freuman (128 Misc.2d 680, 680-81 [App. Term First Department 1985)]:
The integrity of the rent stabilization scheme is obviously undermined if tenants, who themselves are the beneficiaries of regulated rentals, are free to sublease their apartments at market levels and thereby collect the profits which are denied the main landlord.
* * *
This practice, which the Rent Stabilization Law was designed to prevent, is not to be condoned by permitting the tenant to remain after the fraud has been found out.
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 customercare@alm.com 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?