New York Real Estate Lawyer Blog

So, you are an entrepreneur, a small business trying to distinguish yourself from the crowd. You pick a name, say, "The Chocolate Library," and you think you are good. But, under the New York State Business Corporation Law, such a name may not be available.

"Libraries" are generally known as a collection of books and other materials for reading and study. In a clever play off the traditional definition, an East Village boutique tried using the name The Chocolate Library, and hoped to register the name to describe the store's large assortment of chocolate, including various international brands, origins, types, and tastes.

Effective July 2005, however, the use of school-related words such as 'library,' 'school,' academy,' 'institute,' and 'kindergarten,' in a certificate of incorporation by any New York business is barred unless there is prior consent from the education commissioner.

In this case, the state education department declined to approve The Chocolate Library's application essentially reasoning that there is a likelihood that children will be confused by the use of the word 'library.' The Chocolate Library's owner, has been quoted in Diner's Journal saying, "This is ridiculous. No one is coming in here confusing us as a library. It’s an arcane law that doesn’t really affect anybody." Bennett's counsel is currently appealing the department's decision.

Bottom Line-- Research the law before you expend money on the name (get it?).

In what should be an interesting trial in Rockland County, New York, the Second Department, (appellate court) recently sent a case to trial over parking in a State Right of Way. Here are the facts.

Plaintiff commenced action seeking "damages" arising from an alleged "nuisance",and a judgment declaring that she had the "exclusive right" to use a certain parking area located in a New York State owned right of way. The homeowner (an attorney) alleged that she purchased a parcel of land on NYS Route 9W in Piermont, Rockland County. The parcel had approximately 45 feet of road frontage along the (River Side) of Route 9W. A non-party neighbor owned a parcel with approximately fifty (50) feet of road frontage, and the target Defendants own a parcel to the east of the non-party, but had no direct access the public roadway (Rt. 9W), except for a "right-of-way" over the Plaintiff's parcel via a common stairway and walkway shared by all three. Rt 9W has no parking restrictions, and the Defendants have been parking one of their vehicles in the parking area in front of the Plaintiff’s parcel because they have two small children, and crossing the road is exceedingly dangerous.

The trial court concluded that the Plaintiff had no right to enjoin the Defendants from parking on the State right-of-way, but the Appellate Division disagreed and sent the matter to a full blown trial. Finding the situation to be "unique," the Court held that there are issues of fact as to whether the Defendants' continual parking of one of their vehicles in the parking area in front of the Plaintiff's parcel unreasonably interference with the plaintiff's right of ingress and egress, and whether there might be a safe alternative place for the Defendants to park.

But wait, how can that be? Why should the Plaintiff have any greater right to park on the public highway than either of the other two people who share the common right to use the stairs. What happened to that age old rule-- The early bird gets the worm . . . or in this case, the parking space along a PUBLIC Highway.

Bottom line-- Seems like the Plaintiff has a heavy burden to prove that she has some sort of superior right to the parking on a public highway. These issues in our suburban neighborhood require careful analysis and good lawyering. Apparently it doesn't hurt if you are a lawyer too (here the Plaintiff herself is a lawyer).