Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In our article in the October 2022 issue, we discussed NYC Administrative Code §22-1005 (the Guaranty Law), which, under certain conditions, cancelled the obligations of guarantors of commercial leases. This article discusses the recent developments surrounding the constitutionality of the statute. In particular, we address the Southern District's view that the Guaranty Law is unconstitutional and the splintered view of the statute's constitutionality expressed by New York State courts.
In Melendez v. City of New York, 503 F.Supp.3d 13 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), a group of landlords sued the City of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a declaration that the Guaranty Law was unconstitutional under the Contracts Clause of the Federal Constitution. On Nov. 25, 2020, the District Court issued a decision upholding the Guaranty Law against constitutional challenges. See, id. The District Court's decision was appealed to the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit identified serious concerns about the Guaranty Law being a "reasonable and appropriate" means to serve the City of New York's proffered purpose — to help shuttered businesses survive the pandemic. Melendez v. City of New York, 16 F.4th 99, 1038–47 (2d Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the action back to the District Court for further proceedings.
On remand, the District Court evaluated the constitutionality of the Guaranty Law according to the guidelines set forth in Sullivan v. Nassau Cty. Interim Fin. Auth., 959 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2020), asking: "(1) whether the contractual impairment is substantial and, if so, (2) whether the law serves a legitimate public purpose such as remedying a general social or economic problem and, if such purpose is demonstrated, (3) whether the means chosen to accomplish this purpose are reasonable and necessary." Melendez v. City of New York, 668 F.Supp.3d 184, 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
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
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.
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.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
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?