18809 research outputs found
Sort by
Are Your Secrets Safe?: Imposing a Fiduciary Duty on Healthcare AI Developers Dealing with Sensitive Health Information
No full textIn 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to establish standards for transmitting health information. For decades, the HIPAA Privacy Rule has operated as the primary regulation protecting health information in the United States. However, in the decades since HIPAA was enacted, new technologies have demonstrated the shortcomings of the Privacy Rule. In particular, the development of healthcare artificial intelligence (AI) has created new privacy concerns and exacerbated existing ones. This Note examines the current healthcare privacy framework in the United States and considers how healthcare AI complicates it. This Note also explores how AI developers need access to sensitive health information to build healthcare AI. To protect private health information while promoting AI development, this Note proposes a novel solution: impose a fiduciary duty on healthcare AI developers. Fiduciary relationships exist when one party has control over the other’s affairs, like in doctor-patient or lawyer-client relationships. Instead of relying on consent, a fiduciary must act in the other party’s best interest. Furthermore, imposing a fiduciary duty does not require the time or resources needed to create a new regulatory scheme. Ultimately, by requiring healthcare AI developers to act in the best interests of data subjects, fiduciary duties reinforce privacy protections without stifling access to data that is essential for AI development
JANEL TOWERS LLC v. ABOAGYE
No full textIn this nonprimary residence holdover proceeding, the landlord moved to restore the case for immediate trial five years after it was marked off calendar for discovery. The court denied the motion, finding the landlord failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay, a lack of prejudice to the tenant, or to address the merits of the underlying nonprimary residence claim. Citing Appellate Term precedent, the court emphasized that a motion to restore, filed more than one year after a case is stricken, requires proof of merit, lack of prejudice, lack of intent to abandon, and a reasonable excuse for delay. The landlord\u27s allegation of unpaid use and occupancy was deemed an insufficient basis to warrant restoration
YAARON, LLC v. Swanson
No full textIn this non-payment proceeding, the tenant successfully moved to dismiss the petition, with the landlord\u27s cross-motion to amend being denied. The court determined the apartment remained Rent Stabilized, rejecting the landlord\u27s claim of high-rent vacancy deregulation. The landlord failed to comply with pre-HSTPA deregulation requirements, including providing proper notice and registering a lawful rent with DHCR. The court found the landlord\u27s purported free market lease rent unlawful and never registered, rendering the petition and rent demand defective. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that a non-payment proceeding cannot be maintained without registering the legal regulated rent
317 W. 89th St. LLC v. Bell
No full textIn this licensee holdover proceeding, the Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a Civil Court order denying the landlord\u27s motion to strike the tenant\u27s jury demand. The court held that a jury trial is appropriate where the tenant\u27s counterclaims for harassment and discrimination seek only money damages, making the relief sought legal, not equitable, in nature. The tenant\u27s appeal concerning the striking of her affirmative defenses was deemed abandoned. This decision establishes that counterclaims for monetary damages in a holdover proceeding, even if tied to harassment or discrimination, warrant a jury trial
663 Madison Ice, LLC v. Jansen
No full textIn this nonpayment proceeding, the landlord sought arrears and possession. The court dismissed the landlord\u27s petition without prejudice, finding the apartment rent-stabilized because the landlord failed to provide the required deregulation rider to the first tenant after a purported high-rent vacancy deregulation. Although the landlord proved substantial individual apartment improvements (IAIs), the regulatory status was deemed rent-stabilized. Consequently, the tenant\u27s rent overcharge counterclaim was granted for $6,267.50, but claims for warranty of habitability breach, treble damages, and attorney\u27s fees were denied
BSC Owner LLC v. Johnson
No full textThe landlord moved to restore a holdover proceeding seeking a final judgment of possession based on the tenant\u27s alleged breach of a 2019 probationary stipulation. The stipulation required the tenant to permanently exclude her son from the premises and remove him from the household composition. The landlord\u27s motion relied on information and belief that the tenant changed the head of household to her son and that the tenant may reside in Pennsylvania. The court denied the motion, finding the landlord\u27s affirmations and documentation insufficient, lacking personal knowledge and corroborating evidence, and failing to demonstrate a breach, particularly that the son was observed on the premises, as required by the stipulation to trigger a hearing
G&L Realty Del. LLC v. Schypior
No full textIn this licensee holdover, the court denied the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss or stay the proceeding, asserting concurrent jurisdiction with DHCR over succession claims and declining to stay the eviction given the administrative complaint\u27s nascent stage and lack of use and occupancy offer. The court also denied the landlord\u27s cross-motion for summary judgment, which contended that the tenant\u27s B-1/B-2 visa precluded primary residence and thus succession. Citing the visa\u27s long duration and the tenant\u27s several years of occupancy, the court found a triable issue of fact as to whether unusual circumstances existed to reconcile the visa status with a claim of primary residence for succession purposes
Fellin v. Martinez
No full textIn this licensee holdover proceeding, the tenant moved to dismiss the petition, arguing it was defective for failing to state why the premises were exempt from the New York Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) and for not disclosing the number of units owned by the landlord and their addresses, as required by Real Property Law (RPL) § 214 and RPAPL § 741. The court granted the tenant\u27s motion, dismissing the proceeding without prejudice, finding the landlord failed to comply with RPL § 214 by not providing the required ownership information for a small landlord GCEL exemption claim
Macias v. Macias
No full textThe landlord initiated a summary holdover proceeding to evict the former spouse, categorized as a tenant at will or sufferance, after their divorce. The tenant sought dismissal, asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a defective predicate notice. The court denied the dismissal motion, affirming its jurisdiction over tenancies at will or sufferance under RPAPL § 711(1) and RPL § 228, clarifying that the spousal support obligation did not preclude jurisdiction. Although the court granted the tenant leave to file a late answer, it proceeded to a summary determination, concluding that no triable issues of fact existed since the tenant had previously agreed to vacate the premises as part of their divorce settlement. Consequently, a judgment of possession was awarded to the landlord, with execution of the warrant stayed for several months
138 W. 46th St. Realty Co. LLC v. Hunter
No full textThe Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal of a landlord\u27s holdover petition seeking to evict a rent-stabilized tenant for non-primary residence. The landlord based its claim on the tenant\u27s two-year absence while recovering from a stroke in a rehabilitation facility. The court found the absence excusable for primary residence purposes, supported by evidence of the tenant\u27s discharge plan and return. It further concluded that the landlord was not unfairly surprised by the tenant\u27s medical condition defense, as the petition itself acknowledged the tenant\u27s stroke and need for care, and the tenant\u27s answer had raised the possibility of a reasonable accommodation