By Richard E. Weltman

New York State’s highest court recently agreed to consider whether New York City's effort to limit law firms’ ability to collect debts violates the state's exclusive power to regulate attorney conduct.

The Court of Appeals will take up two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which ruled that the case — in which Eric Berman PC and Lacy Katzen LLP contest the legality of Local Law 15 — raises unresolved and significant issues about the scope of New York State’s exclusive authority to regulate attorney activities. Berman v. City of New York, 2014 WL 5463299 (Oct. 29, 2014).

By Michael L. Moskowitz

A long journey has finally come to an end for Mary Veronica Santiago-Monteverde (“Debtor”), an elderly widow, who has resided in a Manhattan rent-stabilized apartment for more than 40 years. We have reported previously on Debtor’s opposition to her chapter 7 trustee’s efforts to sell her rent-stabilized lease to her landlord as a so-called asset of the bankruptcy estate.   

We have previously reported on an Eleventh Circuit case entitled Bank of America, N.A. v. David Lamar Sinkfield (No. 13-700), in which the Supreme Court denied Bank of America’s petition for certiorari regarding whether section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to remove or strip-off a wholly unsecured—or “underwater”—mortgage lien in chapter 7 bankruptcy. See the original article here.