Legal Research

If you are already an online subscriber to the New York Law Journal you should be able to click on any of the links provided below, sign in, and access the full text of articles listed.

http://www.nylj.com

Subscription required for online access unless otherwise noted:

New York Practice
Monday, July 20, 2009
By Thomas F. Gleason

" Thomas F. Gleason, a member of Gleason, Dunn, Walsh & O'Shea, in Albany and an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, writes that a recent case holds an important lesson for the Article 78 petitioner - never take a more aggressive position than is absolutely necessary, because the odds against you already are long. For example, he notes, the petitioner in Infante was not asking for a lot, and apparently would have been satisfied with a death certificate that said that the cause of death was deemed 'indeterminate.' "

OUTSIDE COUNSEL:

Divided Supreme Court Extends Reach of Confrontation Clause
Monday, July 20, 2009
By Harry Sandick and Justin Mendelsohn

"Harry Sandick, of counsel at Schulte Roth & Zabel, and Justin Mendelsohn, an associate at the firm, write that the Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts directly rejects the admissibility of only a single type of evidence - certified laboratory reports - but the Court's reasoning casts a broader shadow. Ultimately, the decision calls into question the procedure by which prosecutors lay a foundation for admission of business records via affidavits, a practice explicitly permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

SPECIAL REPORTS:

Free: Litigation: Financial Crisis Update
Monday, July 20, 2009
" In this Special Section from the New York Law Journal, brought to you free by ERS Group: 'Potential Claims From the TARP Program,' 'Actions Heat Up Over CDO Transactions' and 'Judgment Secured: Now What?' " 

Also, in the highlighted article from this section,

Unintended Consequences for Financial Services Issuers
"Scott Reynolds, a partner at Lovells, writes: Over the last several months, many financial institutions that tapped the public securities markets to add billions of dollars to their balance sheets in the face of the financial crisis have been the targets of putative class actions alleging violations of §§11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Those claims differ in important ways from the more familiar securities claims brought pursuant to §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and can be more difficult to defend."