Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

New York Real Estate Law Reporter

Features

Preclusive Effect of an Article 78 Determination on a Subsequent Federal Section 1983 Claim Image

Preclusive Effect of an Article 78 Determination on a Subsequent Federal Section 1983 Claim

Stewart E. Sterk

When a state court dismissed a landowner’s article 78 proceeding challenging a zoning determination, can the landowner then bring an action in federal court raising federal constitutional challenges to the same determination?

Features

Landlord & Tenant Law Image

Landlord & Tenant Law

New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff

Ejectment Action Requires Six Months’ Notice Even Though Tenancy Was Month-to-MonthLandlord Claims for Lease Violation Not Barred By Prior Holdover Proceeding In Civil CourtFailure to Submit Evidence That Landlord Served Notice Precludes Summary Judgment On Ejectment ClaimLandlord Failed to Establish That Overcharge Was Not WillfulTenant Adequately Alleged That Rent Concessions Were Preferential Rents

Features

Co-ops and Condominiums Image

Co-ops and Condominiums

New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff

Condominium Buyer Failed to Demonstrate Lawful Excuse for Failure to Perform

Features

Development Image

Development

New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff

Challenge to Positive SEQRA Declaration Not RipeZoning Board of Appeals Failed to Properly Apply Statutory Balancing Test for Area Variance

Features

Real Property Law Image

Real Property Law

New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff

Challenge to Tax Deed Remanded for Consideration of Constitutional IssuesBroker Not Entitled to Commission When Loan Obtained Without Broker’s InvolvementCity Can Remove Canopies Attached to Buildings Without Landowner Consent

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Navigating the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine in Bankruptcy
    When a company declares bankruptcy, avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in securing extra cash for the debtor's dwindling estate. When a debtor-in-possession does not pursue these claims, creditors' committees often seek the bankruptcy court's authorization to pursue them on behalf of the estate. Once granted such authorization through a “standing order,” a creditors' committee is said to “stand in the debtor's shoes” because it has permission to litigate certain claims belonging to the debtor that arose before bankruptcy. However, for parties whose cases advance to discovery, such a standing order may cause issues by leaving undecided the allocation of attorney-client privilege and work product protection between the debtor and committee.
    Read More ›