Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Law (5366)
- International Law (488)
- Intellectual Property Law (418)
- Criminal Law (253)
- Constitutional Law (229)
-
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (199)
- Business Organizations Law (182)
- Banking and Finance Law (154)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (122)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (98)
- Environmental Law (97)
- Courts (93)
- Law and Society (91)
- Judges (81)
- Administrative Law (76)
- State and Local Government Law (67)
- Business (62)
- Criminal Procedure (62)
- Legislation (62)
- Law and Politics (60)
- Securities Law (60)
- Supreme Court of the United States (58)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (56)
- Legal History (55)
- Civil Procedure (53)
- Legal Profession (53)
- Accounting Law (51)
- Jurisprudence (50)
- Labor and Employment Law (50)
- Litigation (50)
- Keyword
-
- Ethics (148)
- Constitution (94)
- Antitrust (70)
- Fordham Law Student Newspaper (70)
- Constitutional law (69)
-
- Copyright (67)
- Criminal law (64)
- Regulation (62)
- Securities (62)
- Privacy (56)
- Evidence (54)
- First Amendment (54)
- Tax (54)
- Constitutional Law (51)
- New York (49)
- Originalism (48)
- Religion (48)
- Property (47)
- Bankruptcy (46)
- Justice (44)
- Law (43)
- Litigation (42)
- Race (42)
- Discrimination (41)
- SEC (41)
- First amendment (39)
- Fraud (39)
- Patent (39)
- Professional responsibility (39)
- Supreme Court (39)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Fordham Law Review (2421)
- Parole Administrative Appeal Decisions (1233)
- Fordham Urban Law Journal (903)
- All Decisions (784)
- Faculty Scholarship (648)
-
- Fordham International Law Journal (605)
- Decisions in Art. 78 Proceedings (360)
- Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal (350)
- Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law (217)
- Parole Interview Transcripts and Decisions (198)
- Fordham Environmental Law Review (169)
- The Advocate (74)
- COMPAS Risk Assessments (58)
- Fordham Law Review Online (47)
- Art. 78 Petitions (37)
- Law School Bulletins 1905-2000 (36)
- Art. 78 Responses (29)
- Parole Administrative Appeal Briefs (28)
- Parole Board Reports (28)
- 27th Annual Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference (2019) (24)
- 28th Annual Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference (2021) (20)
- Reports (19)
- Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum (18)
- Fordham Lawyer (18)
- 29th Annual Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference (2022) (17)
- Congressional Materials (16)
- Faculty Bibliography (15)
- Fordham Competition Law Institute (14)
- Amicus Briefs (13)
- Res Gestae (13)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 8566
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Fabricating The Crime Of Undocumented Presence, Eric S. Fish, Doug Keller
Fabricating The Crime Of Undocumented Presence, Eric S. Fish, Doug Keller
Fordham Law Review
In 2025, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) declared that it is a federal crime simply to be an undocumented immigrant. Congress has enacted no such crime. Congress has made it a crime for an immigrant to enter the United States in a manner that “eludes examination or inspection.” For nearly 100 years, this “elude” offense has been understood to occur only at the moment an immigrant enters the country. But the Trump administration’s OLC has reinterpreted this crime as a continuing offense. Under this new reading, an immigrant who entered unlawfully eludes examination until the moment of …
The Alien Enemies Act Of 1798, Andrew Kent
The Alien Enemies Act Of 1798, Andrew Kent
Fordham Law Review
For the first time since World War II—and for the first time ever outside a formally declared war—an American president has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to detain and deport noncitizens. Enacted during the Quasi-War with France, the Act’s operative language remains largely unchanged today. In March 2025, President Donald J. Trump proclaimed that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua present in the United States are “alien enemies,” asserting that their activities, allegedly coordinated with President Nicolás Maduro’s government, constitute an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” within the meaning of the statute. Litigation challenging the invocation of …
The Role Of Reliance In Stare Decisis Doctrine, Rochelle Hestnas
The Role Of Reliance In Stare Decisis Doctrine, Rochelle Hestnas
Fordham Law Review
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent treatment of reliance interests in stare decisis doctrine is in flux. The Court has overruled long-standing precedent such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey with scant analysis as to how reliance interests factor into stare decisis doctrine, despite continuing to name reliance as a factor that should be considered. Arguments for whether and how reliance interests deserve protection are inherently challenging because it cannot be the case that every precedent should stand. Using Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as a case study, this Note analyzes the Court’s claim …
Splitting The Baby: Determining The Causation Standard In Family And Medical Leave Act Retaliation Claims, Eliana C. Singer
Splitting The Baby: Determining The Causation Standard In Family And Medical Leave Act Retaliation Claims, Eliana C. Singer
Fordham Law Review
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees employees unpaid leave following certain qualifying events. The FMLA not only provides substantive rights but also prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise those rights. When employees face unlawful retaliation, they can bring retaliation claims against their employers. However, there is disagreement among courts as to how to evaluate these claims. More precisely, courts are split concerning whether employees must prove their use of leave was a but-for cause of retaliation, or merely that it was one of an employer’s mixed motives for retaliating. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and …
J&S 49 Prince Llc V. Parra
All Decisions
Respondent superintendent moves for summary judgment dismissing this RPAPL §713(11) holdover on the ground that petitioner's notice of petition materially departed from the mandatory form prescribed by AO/163/19 and 22 NYCRR §208.42(b): the "Language Help" multilingual section contained corrupted characters, organizational boxes were omitted, and prescribed emphasis and visual spacing were eliminated. Court holds that "mandatory" means the prescribed form must be used—it is not suggested language from which a petitioner may construct a substitute—and applies the First Department's strict compliance standard from Riverside Syndicate, Inc. v. Saltzman, 49 AD3d 402 [1st Dept 2008]. The departures impair the form's access-to-justice …
Buddy Properties Llc V. Radomski
Buddy Properties Llc V. Radomski
All Decisions
Nuisance holdover dismissed without prejudice. Paragraph 17(a) of the parties' lease gives the owner the option to terminate after a cure period but does not state the lease shall automatically expire on a date fixed in the notice—no conditional limitation clause. Under binding Second Department precedent, a conditional limitation is a prerequisite for a summary holdover proceeding. Judge Bacdayan notes the rationale is increasingly difficult to justify given RPAPL §753(4)'s statewide extension and effective unenforceability of such clauses against rent-stabilized tenants, but declines to depart from controlling authority absent appellate guidance.
Camba Inc. V. Sutton
All Decisions
Cross-motion to amend petition granted under CPLR 3025(b); respondent's motion to dismiss denied as moot. Proposed amendments—correcting the termination date, reclassifying respondent as licensee rather than subtenant, adding supportive housing regulatory context, and expressly stating the GCEL exemption—elaborate on information already incorporated by reference from the predicate notice. No prejudice to respondent where the core factual theory of derivative licensee occupancy through the original program participant's program participation was disclosed in the predicate notice.
Vavaroutsos V. 511 H+H Llc
All Decisions
Respondents held in civil contempt for non-compliance with the July 20, 2026 Order to Correct directing restoration of gas and hot water service within 14 days. Respondent's opposition—consisting solely of a self-serving affirmation with no proof that any licensed plumber was retained, hired, or paid—fails to establish inability to comply or any concrete steps taken. Good-faith efforts are not a defense to civil contempt. Penalty: \$250 fine under Judiciary Law §773; DHPD awarded \$29,250 in civil penalties under HMC §27-2115(h). Contempt purged by restoring service by October 1, 2026 (heat season start).
Jagram V. Dadwah
All Decisions
RPL §231-c requires a GCEL notice to accompany any RPL §226-c termination notice — either annexed or folded into it. Landlord served the GCEL notice separately; the 90-day notice to quit went out without it. Court dismisses the petition on that unamendable defect. Court separately clarifies that, post-HSTPA, a notice of termination need not expire on the last day of the tenancy term. Dismissal is without prejudice.
715 St. Marks Tenant Assn. V. M&M Crown Realty, Llc
715 St. Marks Tenant Assn. V. M&M Crown Realty, Llc
All Decisions
HP case—tenants (35 rent-stabilized residents) establish ample need under CPLR 408 for narrowly tailored discovery. Seven interrogatories and ten documentary demands regarding elevator and boiler installation and maintenance are outside petitioners' custody or control. DOB and HPD violation records are insufficient alone: agency inspections measure operationality on a single visit and do not capture sporadic recurring outages or systemic failures indicating a need for replacement, as alleged. Respondents bear minimal burden; no possession-recovery urgency in HP enforcement proceedings.
Xia V. Salazar
All Decisions
Court denied landlord's motion to amend petition and granted tenant's cross-motion to dismiss in GCEL holdover. Petition contained contradictory GCEL allegations. Proposed amended petition failed to disclose landlord's direct and indirect ownership interests in other residential real property as required by RPAPL § 741(5-b). Court makes summary determination under CPLR 409(b) dismissing petition without prejudice.
Matter Of Fried V. Lopez
All Decisions
App Div reverses App Term, reinstating Civil Court's dismissal of this personal-use holdover petition. HSTPA Part I §5 expressly applies to proceedings pending at enactment where no judgment of possession had been obtained. No retroactive effect problem arises because the landlord held no vested right to recover units before HSTPA took effect. The heightened 'immediate and compelling necessity' standard and one-unit limit therefore govern this proceeding.
800 Fifth Ave. Prop. Owner Llc V. Trenk
800 Fifth Ave. Prop. Owner Llc V. Trenk
All Decisions
In holdover based on alleged GCEL exemption (rent above 245% of fair market under RPL § 214(15)), court denies both parties' motions for summary judgment. Landlord failed to establish deregulation following 421-a expiration due to unresolved issues regarding corporate leases and regulatory history. Tenant's defenses of rent stabilization, GCEL, retaliatory eviction, and rent overcharge survive. Tenant's discovery request denied as records are obtainable from government agencies.
Buddy Properties Llc V. Radomski
Buddy Properties Llc V. Radomski
All Decisions
Court dismissed breach of lease/nuisance holdover alleging bad behavior by tenant's dog without prejudice because original lease lacked a conditional limitation clause. Court engaged in lengthy discussion of conditional limitation clauses and their interaction with RPAPL § 753(4)'s 30-day cure period, holding that absence of a conditional limitation clause in the parties' lease is fatal to a summary proceeding.
Plaza Off The Park, Hdfc V. Mcgowan
Plaza Off The Park, Hdfc V. Mcgowan
All Decisions
Court dismissed holdover against proprietary lessee in HDFC because petition failed to accurately describe the regulatory status of the unit and tenancy as required by RPAPL § 741(4). Court held that respondent's ability to independently discover the correct regulatory status does not obviate the landlord's burden to describe the premises accurately in the petition from the start.
Webster Senior Building V. Davis
Webster Senior Building V. Davis
All Decisions
Post-eviction court grants tenant's OSC under RPAPL § 749(3) and restores tenant to possession forthwith. HRA one-shot-deal checks for rent arrears were mailed to wrong address after management companies changed. Court finds it inappropriate to keep tenant out of possession given HRA approval, tenant's age, longevity of rent stabilized tenancy, and the bureaucratic error. Warrant re-execution stayed pending HRA reissuance of checks.
Administrative Appeal Decision - Turcsan, Andras (2026-08-04)
Administrative Appeal Decision - Turcsan, Andras (2026-08-04)
Parole Administrative Appeal Decisions
No abstract provided.
Administrative Appeal Decision - Gibson, Gee (2026-08-18)
Administrative Appeal Decision - Gibson, Gee (2026-08-18)
Parole Administrative Appeal Decisions
No abstract provided.
Mackay Props. Llc V. Hernandez
Mackay Props. Llc V. Hernandez
All Decisions
Court grants tenant's pro se OSC for stay of execution of warrant of eviction based on HRA one-shot-deal approval covering substantial arrears. Court orders entire proceeding stayed until landlord corrects HPD violations including Class C immediately hazardous violations, citing Park West Management Corp v Mitchell warranty of habitability mandate. Landlord further enjoined from starting a new nonpayment proceeding during the stay.
141 Macdonough Street Hdfc V. Reid
141 Macdonough Street Hdfc V. Reid
All Decisions
Grimmet government-entwinement test satisfied: HDFC operates under Private Housing Finance Law Article XI, its deed and certificate of incorporation carry HPD approval requirements and low-income use covenants, and Board of Estimate resolutions provide a partial tax exemption running through July 2029. Constitutional due process therefore requires the HDFC to demonstrate 'cause' to evict. The notice of termination states only that the tenant 'failed to pay rent'—no period, no rate, no arrears balance. This is legally insufficient: vague and conclusory. Additionally, 16 HPD violations exist against the premises (15 served before the notice) and 40 building-wide violations, 2 of which are …
141 Macdonough St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. V. Rhodes-Wiggins
141 Macdonough St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. V. Rhodes-Wiggins
All Decisions
Companion case to LT-306940-25/KI—same building, same HDFC, same judge (Grant, J.). The same Grimmet analysis applies. The notice of termination is identically deficient, alleging only 'failed to pay rent' without specifying the period or arrears amount. The same predicate notice inadequacy compels dismissal. Additionally, 34 HPD violations exist against the premises (29 pre-notice) including 3 rent-impairing violations that have not been certified as corrected, which are relevant to the adequacy of notice because uncorrected rent-impairing violations could implicate an MDL §302-a abatement defense. Proceeding dismissed.
Cemt Broadway Inc. V. Asante
All Decisions
In this loft law licensee holdover proceeding, Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that the notice of petition used a form that deviated from the mandatory form prescribed by 22 NYCRR § 208.42(b) and AO 163/19. Petitioner cross-moved to compel discovery. The court denied the motion to dismiss under the Burnell standard, finding the deviation non-prejudicial to Respondent, and addressed the discovery motion separately.
Alvarez V. Z&Y Llc
All Decisions
In this Housing Preservation (HP) action, the court granted petitioner's motion to amend the petition to add a harassment claim and to add the Department of Buildings (DOB) as a nominal respondent (the DOB addition had been opposed). The court held that the proposed pleading stated a cognizable claim sounding in landlord-tenant harassment under the Housing Maintenance Code, citing Berg v Chelsea Hotel Owner, LLC, 203 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2022]. In adding DOB, the court held that given DOB's specialized role in enforcing regulations related to structural stability, joining DOB as a nominal party would promote the public interest …
Eastern 1090 Realty Llc V. Joseph
Eastern 1090 Realty Llc V. Joseph
All Decisions
Landlord moved for leave to reargue the court's prior denial of a default judgment against pseudonymous respondents John Doe and Jane Doe. The court denied reargument, holding that a landlord seeking default judgment against unnamed respondents must still demonstrate due diligence in attempting to identify the individuals by name and provide a description sufficient to fairly apprise them that they are the intended defendants, and that a defaulting party's admission of traversable allegations does not relieve the petitioner of establishing a prima facie case.
Cosmopolitan Associates Ii, Llc V. Milan
Cosmopolitan Associates Ii, Llc V. Milan
All Decisions
In this nonpayment proceeding involving a rent-stabilized apartment, Respondent moved to amend his answer to add overcharge defenses and counterclaims and to conduct discovery. The court granted the motion in part, permitting Respondent to add defective registration and overcharge claims dating to 2006 based on a colorable fraud indicia, and granted limited discovery, but denied the claim for discovery predating 2006 and certain other relief.
Garcia V. Miller
All Decisions
In this proceeding that converted from a holdover to a nonpayment proceeding and settled by stipulation requiring Petitioner to offer Respondent a rent-stabilized lease at $2,145/month, Respondent moved to compel compliance with the stipulation. The court granted Respondent's motion, ordering Petitioner to provide the agreed rent-stabilized lease and comply with outstanding repair obligations.
Tuan Mai V. Sp 1143 Second Llc
Tuan Mai V. Sp 1143 Second Llc
All Decisions
Respondent wins summary judgment dismissing nearly all overcharge claims. Reargument denied—Burrows v 75-25 153rd St. did not require a different result since petitioner offered no evidence of fraud whatsoever. The 2012-2013 increase is explained by the Carbone renewal lease; the 2016 IAI is substantiated by contractor affidavits, design drawings, and photographs. One narrow factual dispute survives: whether the $1,032 cabinet-door component of the 2013 IAI was proper where the door count is disputed. Respondent awarded attorneys' fees as prevailing party on the central claims; parties to confer on damages amount.
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. V. Smith
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. V. Smith
All Decisions
In this debt collection lawsuit, the defendant defaulted and moved to vacate the judgment and interpose an answer denying proper service. At the traverse hearing, the plaintiff's process server failed to testify credibly about service. Specifically, there was a dispute about whether the door she allegedly affixed the documents to was the door to defendant's apartment, and the description in her affidavit did not match the photograph defendant submitted into evidence. The process server also only attempted service when defendant was at work and failed to bring her logbook or any other paper or electronic records to support her testimony. …
Brooklyn Housing Preservation L.P. V. Highsmith
Brooklyn Housing Preservation L.P. V. Highsmith
All Decisions
Court dismissed nonpayment petition because landlord failed to serve a VAWA notice of occupancy rights with the rent demand, holding that a rent demand qualifies as a 'notification of eviction' under VAWA that triggers the notice requirement. Court rejected landlord's argument that the rent demand is merely a corrective notice rather than a notice of termination.
Woods V. Plunkett
All Decisions
Court dismissed licensee holdover petition because it failed to clearly allege facts regarding the creation and duration of respondent's license, the manner of service of the notice to quit (petitioner filed two contradictory affidavits of service and two materially different versions of the notice), and the regulatory status of the premises. Court noted petitioner did not move to amend.