August 15, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Eric Strain Joins Locke Lord from Nixon PeabodyAnd other announcements of recent hirings and promotions of New York attorneys.
By Patricia Kane
3 minute read
August 15, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Balancing Litigation Costs: The Need for Automatic Discovery StaysTo combat the tension between litigation and skyrocketing litigation costs, the authors propose amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to comport with the position taken by many state courts, including New York, to stay all discovery upon the filing of a dispositive motion to dismiss a complaint.
By Russell Yankwitt and Dina Hamerman
6 minute read
August 14, 2019 | New York Law Journal
New Legislation to Regulate Hemp, Extracts and CBDThe New York State Legislature has passed legislation which, if signed by Governor Cuomo, will establish one of the most comprehensive regulatory frameworks for hemp and hemp extracts in the country and could significantly impact the burgeoning hemp industry in New York by adding new regulatory requirements. This article provides a summary of some of the legislation's more notable (and controversial) provisions.
By Mitchell Pawluk and Meaghan Lambert
6 minute read
August 14, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Epstein Saga Puts Spotlight on Crime Victim’s Rights ActIn their White-Collar Crime column, Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert discuss how the significance of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act has been highlighted in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein case.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
12 minute read
August 14, 2019 | New York Law Journal
'Claim of Right' Update: 'Mihelick v. United States'In their Taxation column, Elliot Pisem and David Kahen discuss 'Mihelick v. United States,' where the Court of Appeals provided welcome guidance on the applicability of §1341 in situations involving a change in marital status and where the repayment resulting in a deduction is not made to the initial payor of the item.
By Elliot Pisem and David E. Kahen
10 minute read
August 13, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Realty Law DigestIn his Realty Law Digest, Scott E. Mollen discusses two landlord-tenant cases: ‘699 Venture Corp. v. Zuniga,’ and ‘Edelstein LLC v. Connelly.’
By Scott E. Mollen
15 minute read
August 13, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Crystallization of Carried Interest in Joint VenturesIn their Transactional Real Estate column, Peter Fisch and Mitchell Berg discuss the use of the “crystallized carry structure” in real estate joint ventures.
By Peter E. Fisch and Mitchell L. Berg
10 minute read
August 06, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Court Finds Lease Allowed Yellowstone Motion ‘After’ Cure Period ExpiredIn their Landlord Tenant column, Warren Estis and Michael Feinstein discuss “255 Butler Associates, LLC v. 255 Butler, LLC,” a "highly unusual case" where, despite the clear rule stating that an application for Yellowstone relief must be made “prior to the expiration of the cure period set forth in the lease and the landlord’s notice to cure,” the Appellate Division, Second Department upheld the Supreme Court’s granting of a Yellowstone motion which had been made after the expiration of the cure period in the notice to cure.
By Warren A. Estis and Michael E. Feinstein
6 minute read
August 06, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Realty Law DigestIn his Realty Law Digest, Scott E. Mollen discusses ‘Matter of AIH Group v. C.J.F. & Sons,’ which is of interest because the decision stated the conditions necessary to protect an adjoining property owner and many of these disputes—which have become very common in New York City—are resolved through negotiated agreements not available to the public. He also discusses the Landlord-Tenant case ‘186 Norfolk LLC v. Euvin,’ where the court denied an occupant’s claim for succession; and 'Matter of Greentree Found. v. Mammin,’ where it was found that a board of zoning appeals improperly based its decision on submissions that were not provided to the petitioner.
By Scott E. Mollen
14 minute read
August 01, 2019 | New York Law Journal
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?A discussion of the inconsistencies associated with the term “legal possession” with the authors concluding that the term has no single, definite, fixed meaning. In fact, separate authorities ascribe different meanings and neither of those “official” meanings is consistent with the most common usage, i.e., “lawful possession.”
By Thomas C. Lambert and Steven Shackman
11 minute read
Trending Stories