Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What obligation does the Fair Housing Act impose on a landlord confronted with tenant-on-tenant harassment? In Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 676, the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of tenant's claims against a landlord who failed to take action against a harassing tenant, dismissing tenant's claims based on intentional discrimination and deliberate indifference. The court's holding did not give landlords a free pass, but it did establish that to survive dismissal, a harassed tenant's complaint will have to include more than bare-bones allegations of intentional discrimination.
On approximately eight occasions during 2012, tenant Endres harassed a fellow tenant, Francis, with verbal insults and a death threat. Endres hurled epithets at Francis, who is African American, using the N-word on numerous occasions and at one point saying, "I ought to kill you." Francis reported these incidents both to the police and to the landlord. The police ultimately arrested Endres for aggravated harassment. Despite three certified letters from Francis complaining of racial harassment and reporting slurs by Andres against Jewish people, landlord took no action against Endres until January 2013, when Endres moved out at the expiration of his lease. Endres subsequently pleaded guilty in state court to the harassment violation and the court issued an order of proration prohibiting him from contacting Francis.
Francis then brought an action against landlord and Endres in federal district court, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the New York State Human Rights Law and also seeking recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The District Court entered a default judgment against Endres but granted landlord's motion to dismiss. A divided Second Circuit panel reversed and reinstated the federal and state Human Rights Law claims. The Second Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc and, by a vote of 7-5, reinstated the District Court's dismissal of the complaint against the landlord. Judge Jose Cabranes wrote for the majority; Judges Denny Chin and Raymond Lohier wrote for the dissenters.
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.