Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

Legal Research

: New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

New York Law Journal Featured Columnists December 3, 2008

By David Badertscher, PLL

<font size="1"> <p><font size="2">If you are already an online subscriber to the New York Law Journal you should be able to click on any of the links provided below, sign in, and access the full text of articles listed.</font></p> <p><a href="http://www.nylj.com" target="_blank"><font size="2">http://www.nylj.com</font></a><font size="2"> </font></p> <p><font size="2">Subscription required for online access unless otherwise noted:</font></p> <p><a href="http://alm.rsys1.net/servlet/cc6?HtuYQSRCBDQSVKIHKLjlkxJhmjlkQklHlLQgPQmkVaVSS" target="_blank"><font size="2"><font color="red">Free With Registration:</font> Real Estate Securities</font></a><br/><font size="2">Wednesday, December 3, 2008<br/>By Peter M. Fass<br/><br/>" Peter M. Fass, a partner at Proskauer Rose, discusses some of the securities law considerations in connection with the offer and sale of unregistered real estate securities using the Internet (e.g., interests in limited partnerships or limited liability companies). "</font></p><!--commentsListSize 0--><!-- December 03, 2008 --> <p><a href="http://alm.rsys1.net/servlet/cc6?HtuYQSRCBDQSVKIHKLjlkxJhmjlkQklHlLQgPQmkVaVST" target="_blank"><font size="2">Appellate Practice </font></a><br/><font size="2">Wednesday, December 3, 2008<br/>By Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.<br/><br/>"Thomas R. Newman, of counsel to Duane Morris, and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr., a partner at Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, write that unlike federal practice which discourages appeals from interlocutory decisions and, with few exceptions, requires permission of both the U.S. district court and the U.S. court of appeals, New York's civil practice generously allows appeals as of right to be taken to the appellate division from interlocutory judgments and a great many intermediate orders, so long as the order sought to be appealed decided a motion that was made upon notice in an action originating in the supreme court or a county court."</font></p> <p><font size="2">OUTSIDE COUNSEL:</font></p> <p><a href="http://alm.rsys1.net/servlet/cc6?HtuYQSRCBDQSVKIHKLjlkxJhmjlkQklHlLQgPQmkVaVSC" target="_blank"><font size="2">The Americans With Disabilities Amendment Act: A 'National Mandate'</font></a><br/><font size="2">Wednesday, December 3, 2008<br/>By John A. Beranbaum<br/><br/>" John A. Beranbaum, an attorney at Beranbaum Menken Ben-Asher & Bierman, writes: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was a failed law. Its stated purpose was 'to provide consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.' However, the ADA resulted in years of litigation that, rather than clarifying appropriate nondiscriminatory standards, was mired down in defining 'disability' and ascertaining who is covered by the statute. Worse, in a series of decisions construing 'disability' very narrowly, the Supreme Court inappropriately denied the ADA's protections to a wide swath of individuals. Now Congress has sought to breathe life again into the ADA by enacting the ADA Amendment Act of 2008." </font></p> <p><font size="2">REAL ESTATE TRENDS:</font></p> <p><a href="http://alm.rsys1.net/servlet/cc6?HtuYQSRCBDQSVKIHKLjlkxJhmjlkQklHlLQgPQmkVaVTW" target="_blank"><font size="2">Courts Differ on Rights Of Tenants in Illegal Lofts</font></a><br/><font size="2">Wednesday, December 3, 2008<br/>By Warren A. Estis and William J. Robbins<br/><br/>"Warren A. Estis, a founding partner at Rosenberg & Estis, and William J. Robbins, a partner at the firm, review a recent Second Department decision where the court highlighted a divergence from the First Department on two key issues: under what circumstances the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, and the protections of rent stabilization, might be applicable to commercial premises illegally converted to residential use; and the scope of equitable estoppel against a tenant in such premises asserting a defense for non-payment of rent based on Multiple Dwelling Law 302, which bars the owner of a multiple dwelling for which there is no valid certificate of occupancy for residential use from recovering rent for such premises."</font></p> <p> </p></font>

Full post as published by New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library on December 03, 2008 (boomark / email).