Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A wave of legislation designed to aid tenants during the COVID-19 pandemic has had an outsized effect on commercial landlord-tenant relations in New York City. The bill that has attracted perhaps the most attention is NYC Administrative Code § 22-1005, known as the "Guaranty Law." The Guaranty Law canceled the guaranty obligations of qualifying guarantors and left landlords without a remedy to recoup their losses. Notably, the Guaranty Law has been interpreted inconsistently and is the subject of a constitutional challenge in federal court. This has added to the uncertainty of both landlords and tenants, whose obligations and responsibilities remain unclear.
The Guaranty Law is titled "Personal liability provisions in commercial leases." It was passed by the New York City Council and took effect immediately upon its enactment on May 26, 2020. It bars the enforcement of personal guaranty provisions in commercial leases for premises in New York City if each of two conditions are met.
First, the tenant must have met one or more of three criteria. It must 1) have been required to cease serving patrons food or beverage for on-premises consumption or to cease operation; 2) be a nonessential retail establishment subject to in-person limitations; or 3) have been required to close to members of the public under Executive Order 202.7. The second condition is that "[t]he default or other event causing such natural persons to become wholly or partially personally liable for such obligation occurred between March 7, 2020 and June 30, 2021, inclusive." (The end date was extended from the original date of Sept. 30, 2020).
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.