Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
"Legal possession" is a term used by the landlord-tenant bar. We recently came upon a settlement agreement which required the tenant to deliver "broom-clean legal possession" to the landlord on or before a date certain. In another situation, a good-guy guaranty limited liability to obligations accruing prior to the date the tenant delivers "legal possession" to the landlord. What exactly is meant by "legal possession?"
Let's Start With 'Possession'
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession." Possession is a physical concept, not a right. As stated in Black's Law Dictionary, possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property. That dominion and control may be exercised by excluding others, or letting others in. It is the fact of that physical control that is possession. That power might be exercised legitimately, or it might be exercised wrongfully. It might be exercised in a manner that is a violation of law. But either way, it is the physical fact, the fact of having or holding the property in one's power and control, that constitutes possession.
Under New York law, a person who has been in peaceable possession for 30 consecutive days or longer may not legally be removed by force, even if that person's possession was obtained wrongfully. It is not a question of what the person's underlying rights may be. Whether the person is a tenant under a lease, a squatter, or even one who himself entered into possession by unlawful means or by force, a person who has been in peaceable possession for at least 30 consecutive days may not legally be removed by force. The owner or other person with a superior right of possession must seek the person's eviction by commencing a case in court. RPAPL §711; Mitchell v. City of New York, 154 Misc.2d 222 (Civ. Ct. Bx. Co. 1992) (residential occupant in possession for at least 30 days shall not be removed from possession except in a special proceeding); Sol De Ibiza v. Panjo Realty, 29 Misc.3d 72 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2010) (a right to self-help specifically reserved in a commercial lease may be utilized only where it is effectuated "peaceably").
In addition, New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) §853 provides: "If a person is disseized, ejected, or put out of real property in a forcible or unlawful manner, or, after he has been put out, is held and kept out by force or by putting him in fear of personal violence or by unlawful means, he is entitled to recover treble damages in an action therefor against the wrong-doer."
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?