18809 research outputs found
Sort by
Don’t Black Lives Matter? Confronting the Problem of Disproportionate Black Victimization
No full textReimagining Employment Discrimination Under Title VII: National Origin and Immigration Status After Bostock
No full textIn Re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation: Where Macquarie Meets Affiliated Ute
No full textThe central question this Article seeks to address is whether there is any world in which the Affiliated Ute presumption can still apply to cases under Rule 10b-5(b) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Macquarie? Put differently, if only half-truths and affirmative misrepresentations remain actionable under Rule 10b-5(b), is the Basic presumption the only pathway left for securities plaintiffs? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will likely be the first court to address this issue in In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. The case will test the availability of the Affiliated Ute presumption post-Macquarie in cases based on half-truths under Rule 10b-5(b). If the Sixth Circuit affirms the decision of the lower court, it will drive a further wedge between it and other federal appellate courts—the majority of which have determined that only the Basic presumption can apply to cases based on half-truths. Those circuit courts have reasoned that the problems of proof that plagued plaintiffs in omissions cases do not apply in instances where the defendant has spoken, even if the statements are incomplete. The circuit split could prompt Supreme Court intervention to resolve the question of whether the Affiliated Ute presumption can apply to half-truth cases. Significantly, the answer to this question could signal a paradigmatic shift in the securities fraud class action landscape
Linden 305 LLC v. Miller
No full textIn this licensee holdover, the tenant moved to disqualify the landlord\u27s counsel, arguing a conflict of interest because one of the firm\u27s attorneys previously represented the tenant in a substantially related prior proceeding. The court found that a presumption of disqualification arose, but the landlord rebutted it by demonstrating that the attorney lived out of state, was not involved in the current proceeding, did not possess material information, and the firm had established an ethical wall. The court denied the tenant\u27s motion but prohibited the firm from discussing the case with the attorney in question
Gladys Hampton Affordable Preservation, LLC. v. Goodwin
No full textIn this nonpayment proceeding, the tenant moved to consolidate several similar proceedings against the same landlord, citing common issues regarding VAWA compliance and the landlord\u27s alleged failure to serve required HUD-5382 forms as a condition precedent. The landlord cross-moved for sanctions, alleging frivolous conduct. The court partially granted the tenant\u27s motion to consolidate, combining cases in similar procedural postures involving the same building and petitioner. The court denied the landlord\u27s cross-motion, finding the tenant\u27s motion was not frivolous. The tenant\u27s motion to dismiss the petitions was deferred and restored for a future status conference
OBIANUJUG NWAKILE v. ADETUNJI D. BANKOLE
No full textHandwritten opinion. A landlord brought a lease expiration holdover proceeding against a tenant. The court granted the tenant\u27s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case because the landlord failed to comply with the requirements of the Good Cause Eviction Law (GECL). The landlord\u27s cross-motion to serve a Notice of Applicability was denied as moot. The court found that the landlord\u27s non-compliance with GECL was a fatal defect, requiring dismissal of the proceeding. This case illustrates the importance of a landlord\u27s strict adherence to GECL notice requirements in lease expiration holdover proceedings
HALJAMAR REALTY CORP. v. MIZRACHI
No full textIn this nonpayment case, the court awarded the tenants a substantial rent abatement of over $76, 000 for the landlord\u27s breach of the warranty of habitability. The tenants successfully proved the existence of numerous conditions, including leaks, mold, and defective surfaces, using HPD violations and trial testimony. While the landlord was granted a final money judgment for the remaining arrears, the court significantly reduced the amount owed. The decision underscores the importance of a fact-based defense in abatement cases to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard
Rethinking Aquaculture Regulation in a Post-Chevron World
No full textAfter the Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, commentators warned of the detriment to federal agencies resulting from the loss of judicial deference to agencies’ interpretations of the statutes they administer. This Essay takes a different approach and examines how advocates for agency authority can use this shift away from judicial deference to their advantage—by refocusing litigation strategy toward congressional delegations. Statutory interpretation arguments need no longer focus on whether an agency is intruding on the judicial prerogative to interpret the law and can now focus instead on whether a court is intruding on the congressional prerogative to delegate discretionary authority to agencies. This is a powerful shift in framing.
Using marine aquaculture regulation as an analytical reference, this Essay makes the affirmative case for agency regulation. Even while overruling Chevron, the Court did not take the most restrictive approach to agency authority and instead reaffirmed that authority in the form of discretion. The Loper Bright delegation is thus a forceful legal mechanism through which agencies may exercise the full extent of their statutory authority and defeat major questions doctrine challenges to that authority. At a time when anti-regulatory sentiment pervades the federal Executive and Judicial branches, Loper Bright enables agencies to accomplish their substantive congressional mandates—a role critical to a functioning democracy
5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn LLC v. Rivera
No full textIn this licensee holdover, the tenant moved for summary judgment, arguing he was a disabled person under rent control regulations and thus only required to prove one year of co-residency for succession rights. The landlord argued against applying the broader definitions from the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), favoring the narrower standard of the original Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as applied in a prior appellate case. The court, however, ruled that whether the tenant is a disabled person is a triable issue of fact and that it may appropriately look to the ADAAA for guidance, as its remedial purpose aligns with the rent control regulations. The motion for summary judgment was denied
OLR MM, LP v. Larue
No full textThe court dismissed the landlord\u27s nonpayment petition, citing two independent grounds. First, the landlord failed to serve the mandatory VAWA notice and certification form with the predicate notice, a fatal defect because the building is part of a federally covered housing program. Second, the court applied the doctrine of **judicial admission**, finding that the landlord\u27s subsequent holdover petition, which stated that the tenant owed **no rent** through a date after the nonpayment was filed, was a binding admission that negated a critical element of the current petition. The case was restored to the calendar for a trial on the tenant\u27s counterclaims