New York General Practice Legal Questions

Probably not.  From the little you've described, these people probably had a fiduciary obligation to do their best to make the business a success, and if they really screwed up you might have a claim against them, but it is going to be very hard to prove either that (a) they truly acted negligently, particularly since (I assume) it would have been in their best interestsmas well as yours, to make the business a success; or (b) that the business would have been successful (and to show the amount you were damaged) if they had acted properly.... Read Answer

There is a statute of limitations on every claim.  For breach of contract (i.e. failure to pay monies due under a lease), if that is what your landlord's claim is, it is (in New York) six years from the date of the breach.  If you breached the contract on 9/30/15, your landlord could sue you until 9/30/21. ... Read Answer

I would say yes.  I understand why your son would be angry and would not want to return the stuff, but he will look bad in front of the court if he doesn't return it, given that there is no dispute that the equipment was on loan.  In light of the situation, however, I think your son should make sure to get proof that he returned the stuff in good condition, like a signed receipt and/or an objective witness to go with him when he returns it.... Read Answer

If five people make a contract which provides that it can't be amended except by a 4/5 vote, the contract can't be amended by a majority vote of 3 to 2.  The same is true of the U.S. Constitution, which was agreed to by all the States and contains provisions regarding how it can be modified.  If the Constitution could be changed by simple majority vote, we would have constant upheaval.  Moreover, one of the main purposes of the Constitution is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against the opinion of the majority.  If the Constitution could be amended by simple majority vote, numerous rights could and likely would, at some point in time or other, be eliminated.  For example, the right of muslims to practice their religion, the right of communists, or any other group unpopular at any particular time, to form a political party or have meetings, or print pamphlets.  The right of accused child molesters to have a trial by jury, or the assistance of counsel, or not to be convicted unless proven guilty beyone a reasonable doubt.  There are numerous other examples of how the Constitution, whether you think it's a good idea or not, is set up to prevent majority rule.  Thus, for example, Henry Kissinger couldn't be president, even if 90% of the eligible voters voted for him, because he didn't meet the Constitutional requirement of being born in the U.S.  Several presidential candidates have garnered more votes than the person who won the election, but were elected because they garnered more electoral votes.  Vermont has the same number of votes in the Senate, even though it has a much smaller population.  If 5 members of the  Supreme Court think a law is unconstitutional, it becomes invalid, even if 98% of the people think the law is constitutional, and a good idea.  I could go on and on.   In many cases, I too dispute the wisdom of the anti-majority provisions of the Constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist, and we, the people, are bound by them.  The anarchy which would ensue if we could change the Constitution any time by a simple majority vote would be a much bigger problem than, for example, the electoral college.... Read Answer

No, each side (plaintiff and defendant) pays its own expenses unless their contract provides otherwise.  However, there is no reason why you would have to return to NYC to have the repairs done, or would have to sue in NYC, again, unless your contract so provides (although you may not be able sue in small claims court.)  You should look at the terms and conditions of your contract, which probably appear on the reverse of your parking stub.  In addition to the issues discussed above, I think you will find a limitation of liability clause on there, probably limiting your damages to a small amount, which provision may be enforceable.... Read Answer

Did your mother leave the property to you and your sister as joint tenants (own the property jointly and survivor takes all) or tenants in common (each owns undivided half interest in property)?  If you own it as a tenant in common, you can sue for partition of the real property, meaning that the interests will be divided.  If it is impractical to physically divide the property (as it seems to be from your description), the Court may order the property sold and the proceeds divided.  I am not sure if this can be done where property is owned as joint tenants, but maybe.  At any rate, the Court may order your sister to allow you to use the property equally with her. In addition, if your sister has been using the house and not letting you do so, she may owe you one half of the use and occupancy value of the property for the period she has excluded you (in other words, your sister has to pay rent for her use of the property; since she owns half, she only has to pay you for your half.)... Read Answer

Not much.  Absent a contract or statute providing otherwise, each side pays its own costs in a lawsuit.  If the claim was truly frivolous (which it doesnt' seem to have been), you might be able to sue the other side for malicious prosecution but (a) I don't think you have much of a case; and (b) then you'd have to pay your attorneys' fees for the malicious prosecution claim.... Read Answer

I don't know why a movie theater would need a licensed security guard to search bags.  When customers buy a ticket, they are informed (at least at venues I go to) that the theater may search their bags.  If they don't consent to the search, they don't have to buy the ticket.  My quick review of NY's Security Guard Act shows that the licensing requirement applies to people who make their living doing security work, not employees of non-security companies who may have to search bags as part of their job, but whose main job responsibilities don't relate to security.... Read Answer