Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Gap, Inc. v. 170 Broadway Retail Owner, LLC NYLJ 71/21, p. 19, col. 6 AppDiv, First Dept. (memorandum opinion)
Landlord appealed from Supreme Court's grant of a Yellowstone injunction to commercial tenant. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that because tenant failed to move for the injunction before expiration of the cure period, tenant's motion should have been denied.
When retail tenant stopped paying rent during the coronavirus pandemic, landlord served tenant with a notice to cure. After the cure period expired, tenant sought a Yellowstone injunction, and also brought claims for breach of contract, for a rent abatement, and for rescission of the lease based on frustration of purpose and impossibility. Supreme Court issued the Yellowstone injunction and denied landlord's motion to dismiss the other claims. Landlord appealed.
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.
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?