18809 research outputs found
Sort by
PPC Residential LLC v. Urtarte
No full textIn a nonpayment proceeding where the petition was dismissed, the court denied the landlord\u27s motion to dismiss the tenant\u27s counterclaims. The court held that the counterclaims, which alleged **breach of the warranty of habitability**, survived the dismissal of the petition because the amended answer containing them had been deemed filed prior to the dismissal. The court also denied the landlord\u27s request for an extension of time to file a reply, finding they failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay. The court, however, did grant the landlord\u27s motion to join the condominium board as a necessary party, to determine liability at trial
Fixing the Fix: The Case for Unifying the Remedial Framework of APA Rulemaking Challenges
No full textVacatur is the default remedy for successful administrative rulemaking challenges brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Yet its broad and sweeping effects raise critical questions regarding its appropriateness as a one-size-fits-all remedy. Unlike injunctive relief, which is subject to a rigorous heightened standard, and remand without vacatur, which has a comparable standard of its own, vacatur is routinely awarded without similar scrutiny, leading to inconsistencies in the judicial application of remedies in APA challenges.
Although vacatur can provide a plaintiff with relief, its award conflicts with underlying principles of equity and proportionality. In rulemaking challenges, vacatur can create regulatory uncertainty while bypassing legal principles such as res judicata, which exists to protect the interests of nonparties to the lawsuit.
This Note explores the judicial treatment of remedies in APA rulemaking challenges, examines the imbalances stemming from vacatur’s presumptive status as a remedy, and critiques the lack of a uniform standard governing APA remedies more broadly. This Note argues that vacatur, remand without vacatur, and permanent injunctions should be treated as three forms of injunctive relief subject to one heightened standard, a showing of which warrants their necessity. By adopting a uniform framework that considers the fact-specific nature of APA challenges, courts can ensure that the remedies awarded, all of which have the potential to fundamentally affect parties outside the challenge, are tailored to address plaintiffs’ injuries while minimizing unnecessary disruption to regulatory systems and public interests
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality and Wire Fraud
No full textAs globalization and technology increasingly blur geographic boundaries, federal prosecutors have turned to the wire fraud statute as a powerful tool for targeting transnational misconduct. Despite its popularity in international fraud prosecution, the statute’s application to foreign conduct continues to raise unresolved and pressing questions under the presumption against extraterritoriality. Specifically, courts have struggled to identify when a domestic wire communication is sufficient to bring a largely foreign fraudulent scheme within the reach of U.S. law. With the U.S. Supreme Court silent on the wire fraud statute directly, and zigzagging in its extraterritoriality jurisprudence more generally, lower courts are split on how to apply the presumption in this context.
Some circuits, led by the Second Circuit, require that the domestic wire be essential to the fraudulent scheme. Other circuits, like the Fourth Circuit, have adopted a looser standard that permits prosecution so long as any domestic wire is used in furtherance of the scheme—regardless of its centrality. This divergence, in a time when global communications and commerce are increasingly reliant on transnational wires, creates uncertainty for foreign actors and raises concerns about overbroad extraterritorial application.
This Note argues that the Second Circuit’s approach better aligns with the text, structure, and purpose of the wire fraud statute, as well as the Supreme Court’s extraterritoriality doctrine. By focusing on whether the domestic wire is integral to the scheme, courts can cabin overreach, avoid unintended foreign entanglements, and preserve fundamental tenets of criminal and international law
Ford v. Ford
No full textThe Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court\u27s order denying the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and granting the landlord\u27s cross-motion to amend the petition in a licensee holdover proceeding. Key legal points included that a trust\u27s trustee is the proper party to maintain an action, and amendment to substitute the trustee is appropriate where, as here, the trustee signed relevant documents and no prejudice was shown. The court also found the conspicuous-place service of the predicate notice and petition was proper, supported by three attempts at different times. Additionally, the tenant\u27s documentary evidence did not conclusively refute the landlord\u27s ownership, and the petition adequately pleaded the cause of action
Oved v. Hasbani
No full textIn this holdover proceeding; the landlord sought possession of an unregulated unit under the Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL); claiming the family-use exception. The tenant moved to dismiss for failure to state facts. The Civil Court of the City of New York granted the tenant\u27s motion; dismissing the petition without prejudice. The court held that the landlord\u27s petition; which only recited statutory language without identifying the specific family member or alleging unavailability of alternative housing; failed to satisfy RPAPL § 741(4)\u27s requirement to state material facts; thus depriving the tenant of adequate notice to frame a defense
815 West 180th Group LLC v. Vargas
No full textIn this licensee holdover; the court granted the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss the petition; finding the landlord\u27s predicate notice of termination fatally defective. The landlord had temporarily relocated the tenants to a different unit after a fire in their primary residence; alleging they were licensees whose license had expired and were not subject to Good Cause Eviction Law (GCEL) protections. The court found the landlord\u27s pleadings; including the notice of termination and GCEL notice; inconsistent and incomprehensible. It held that these notices failed to accurately apprise the tenants of the fundamental nature and grounds of the proceeding; including their status as tenants; thus warranting dismissal
Unsafe at Any Speed: “Safe Third Country Agreements”—Offshoring and Eroding Legal Protections Owed to Refugees and Asylum Seekers
No full text
VAVILI REALTY, LLC v. VARGAS
No full textIn this holdover proceeding, the tenant moved to dismiss, arguing the landlord waived its right to enforce the no-pet provision under NYC Administrative Code § 27-2009.1. The tenant claimed openly and notoriously harboring a dog, and the landlord failed to commence an eviction proceeding within 90 days of knowledge. The court found the landlord\u27s emails and notices proved actual knowledge of the pet\u27s presence more than 90 days before commencing the suit. Consequently, the landlord waived its right to enforce the no-pet clause, and the tenant\u27s motion to dismiss was granted
GVS Props. II, LLC v. Walton
No full textA landlord initiated a holdover proceeding, alleging occupants were licensees. The tenants moved to dismiss, contending they were tenants at sufferance or at will, thus requiring a 30-day notice of termination under RPL § 228, not the 10-day notice served. The landlord argued a prior Appellate Division decision, which found tenants were not rent-stabilized, estopped this claim. The court disagreed, holding that prior findings did not preclude the tenants from arguing non-licensee status. Recognizing the tenants had exclusive possession, the court determined they were improperly classified as licensees, rendering the 10-day notice insufficient and dismissing the petition without prejudice