Generally, many property owners assume that where a lot is held in single and separate ownership they are entitled to an area variance “as of right.” That is not entirely true. An exception to the single and separate doctrine is
Father against son, half-brother against half-brother, are the players in a recent courtroom drama that unfolded in Matter of Brady v. Brady, culminating with an appellate panel’s affirmance of a lower court’s order dissolving a family-owned close corporation that owns extensive farm land in upstate New York. Find out more in this week’s New York Business Divorce.
Aficionados of Commercial Division practice know that the ComDiv rules originally were — and, as evidenced by an Administrative Order earlier this month, continue to be — modeled after the federal rules. Efficiency begets efficiency.
Earlier this month, on October
Preliminary injunctions are a powerful tool in the business divorce litigator’s toolbox, and they often involve a race to the courthouse. This week’s post offers a reminder that sometimes, that race is critical; courts will be more inclined to preserve the status quo with a preliminary injunction than to undo action with one.
Background: Crypto Catch 22
Followers of the SEC’s efforts to regulate digital tokens will recall former SEC Corp Fin Director William Hinman’s speech at the June 14, 2018 Yahoo Finance Conference in which he introduced the now generally accepted proposition
As we’ve mentioned time and again on this blog, since its inception in 1995, New York’s Commercial Division has continued to not only be a leader in developing and shaping commercial law, but it is also on the forefront of
On October 5, 2021, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“Department” or “DEC”) released water quality guidance values for three emerging compounds, PFOA, PFOS and 1,4-Dioxane (collectively, “Emerging Compounds”). The comment period for the draft guidance values runs
In this week’s New York Business Divorce, read about the history and development of the doctrine of tax estoppel, including two strands of competing case law emanating from a pair of New York State Court of Appeals decisions reaching opposite conclusions about the extent to which one may prove ownership status in a closely-held business based upon estoppel.
In March 2020, the New York State Courts and attorneys’ offices all over the state shut down as part of the public’s broad effort to slow the spread of the Coronavirus, and the legal profession quickly transitioned to remote operations. Remote team meetings, court appearances, arbitration hearings, networking events, and depositions were all borne from the necessity imposed by closed offices and social distancing.
Despite the sometimes steep learning curve associated with the remote conferencing technology and systems, remote proceedings became surprisingly effective. Lawyers who once swore that there was nothing like being in the same room as their adversary found that, in many cases, the Zoom or Teams suite works just fine. As a consequence, one need not look beyond the pages of this blog to see that for many, remote practices are here to stay. Commercial Division Rule 1 now allows attorneys to request to appear remotely, saving client costs and avoiding the unnecessary risk of infection. In February, we wrote about the Commercial Division Advisory Committee’s proposed rule authorizing and regulating the use of remote depositions. The proposed rule has received favorable comment.
Paul Hood, one of the leading experts on buy-sell agreements, has a new book on the subject highlighted in this week’s New York Business Divorce and also featured in an interview with Paul on a new episode of the Business Divorce Roundtable podcast.