Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Landlord & Tenant
Liquidated Damages Provision Not an Unenforceable Penalty
The Carlyle, LLC v. Quik Park Beekman II, LLCOccupant Established Succession Right Despite Absence of Sexual or Blood Relationship
Matter of 530 Second Ave Co, LLC v. ZenkerRent Stabilization Provision Lost When Tenant Executed Lease In Corporate Name
Fox v. 12 East 88th Street LLC Comment In , 84 N.Y.2d 385, the Court of Appeals invalidated a statute authorizing hospitals to renew leases for rent stabilized apartments occupied by their employees. The court held the statute unconstitutional as a taking because it would require landlords to offer perpetually renewable Then, in , 229 A.D.2d 197, the First Department held that the employee-occupants of hospital-leased housing, as subtenants of the hospital who were not specifically named in the lease, were not entitled to renewal rights. The court relied on Rent Stabilization Law §26-5011, which provides that when an apartment is sublet, only the primary tenant can be entitled to a renewal lease. Cases subsequent to have reached conflicting outcomes regarding whether an individual occupant needs to be specifically named on the lease in order to benefit from rent stabilization protection. Two First Department cases have held that an occupant not named in the lease was not entitled to renew. Thus, in , 260 A.D.2d 207, the court rejected the argument that the individual Reverend tenant should be deemed primary tenant and entitled to a renewal lease in his name, emphasizing that he was not expressly named as primary tenant on the lease to a religious corporation. Similarly, in , 304 A.D.2d 310, the court held that the President of a corporate tenant was not protected by the Rent Stabilization Law because he was not designated in the lease, even though he had lived in the apartment for more than 20 years. At the same time, in other cases, the First Department has allowed extrinsic evidence to enable an occupant to renew a lease held by the corporate entity. In , 291 A.D.2d 13, the court held that occupants were entitled to renew when a lease issued to a corporation was accompanied by a stipulation in which the corporate entity identified particular individuals as the occupants of specific apartments. The stipulation in listed primary occupants in the 16 apartments leased by the then-closed, not-for-profit corporation for use by Jesuit priests. Additionally, in , 302 A.D.2d 306, the First Department allowed an individual tenant to take advantage of rent stabilization protections where, in prior court documents, landlord had recognized the individual occupant as a tenant by using the individual occupant's name as “the tenant doing business as a corporation.” In , the majority relied on the fact that the occupant executed the lease in the corporation's name and never identified himself as the specific individual occupant in any subsequent renewal leases. However, as the dissent points out, the individual occupant was listed as the tenant on the tenant information sheets completed in tandem with the lease, and had executed pet riders listing the individual's dogs. In addition, landlord addressed subsequent leases personally to the individual. This ruling continues the uncertainty about the scope of the casesPredecessor Landlord Waived Prohibition on Subleases and Assignments
Franpearl LLC v. OrensteinThis 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
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.