Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Grady v. Hessert Realty, L.P., NYLJ 7/30/18, p. 17., col. 2, Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty. (Jaffe, J.)
In tenant's action seeking damages and declaratory relief due to alleged rent overcharges, both tenant and landlord moved for summary judgment. The court granted partial summary judgment to tenant, holding that landlord's failure to register the apartment precluded landlord from collecting rent increases to which landlord would otherwise have been entitled.
Tenant's predecessor paid monthly rent of $1,022.92 before vacating the apartment in 1999. Although the apartment had then been registered as a rent-stabilized apartment, landlord's predecessor failed to re-register in 1999, and leased the premises to tenant at a monthly rent of $1,450, an amount in excess of the permissible stabilized rent, which was $1,207.05. Landlord's predecessor and landlord renewed the lease annually with modest rent increases, so that in March 2016, landlord and tenant signed a renewal lease at a monthly rent of $2,050. Each renewal lease specified that the apartment was not subject to rent regulation. In April 2017, landlord's counsel advised tenant that landlord had elected not to renew her lease. Tenant then brought this action seeking a declaration that she was entitled to rent stabilization protections, and seeking damages for rent overcharges since 1999, together with treble damages and fees. Landlord then offered to renew tenant's lease, and to refund $4,626.15 in overcharges, an amount calculated by subtracting the rents that would have been permitted under the rent stabilization laws from the rent landlord had actually collected for the four-year period preceding tenant's complaint. Tenant did not accept the settlement. Both sides then moved for summary judgment.
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.