“The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few”: A Plan for a New Farm Bill That Promotes the Health and Welfare of Humans and Nonhuman Animals, and Protects the Planet on Which We Live.

The Farm Bill was created in 1933, with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Bill was part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, designed to assist farmers struggling with low prices during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl era. Thus the era of the farm subsidy was born. Crafted in a different time, with technology, knowledge, science and an economy that today would be considered obsolete, the basic mechanisms, and financial support, have nevertheless lived on. The myriad of problems that have arisen since that time within an agriculture industry that has flourished on the taxpayer dime could not have been imagined when the Agricultural Adjustment Act passed nearly 100 years ago. The consequences of the current system for turning animals into our food are broad, encompassing human health, animal health, and the livability of our environment. The initial Farm Bill was created to help feed an economically depressed public by supporting the farmers necessary to feed them. The current Farm Bill has strayed very far from this mission, and now supports a massive agribusiness sector at the expense of the public. This paper will argue the Farm Bill needs to be updated for the current times we live in, to address the needs of Americans living in 2026

ABJ 105 LLC v. Ramos

The landlord commenced four holdover proceedings based on allegations of license termination. The parties, represented by counsel, settled the cases via stipulations recognizing the tenants as Rent-Stabilized and setting rents. The landlord moved to vacate the stipulations, claiming its attorney lacked authority due to law office failure and miscommunication, a unilateral mistake. Tenants cross-moved for sanctions. The court denied the landlord\u27s motion, finding insufficient cause to vacate the settlement, emphasizing that a unilateral mistake by the attorney, absent mutual mistake or fraud by the other party, is not grounds for vacatur. The court also denied the tenants\u27 motion for sanctions, finding the landlord\u27s arguments, though unpersuasive, were colorable

Aras v. B-U Realty Corp.

In this overcharge case, the Court of Appeals clarified the standard for applying the fraud exception to the Rent Stabilization Law\u27s four-year lookback period. The court reiterated that a tenant need not prove every element of common-law fraud to invoke the exception. Instead, a tenant must only demonstrate sufficient indicia of fraud or a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme. The Court reversed the lower court\u27s order, which had incorrectly applied a stricter common-law fraud standard, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for reconsideration under the proper, more lenient standard, significantly favoring the tenant\u27s ability to pursue their claim

ROCK PARK REALTY LLC v. McDonald

In this licensee holdover, the tenant, who was evicted after a default judgment, filed a post-eviction Order to Show Cause seeking restoration. The court granted the tenant\u27s motion, vacating the default judgment and warrant, and restoring the tenant to possession. The court found a reasonable excuse for the default based on the tenant not receiving notice, applying a totality of the circumstances analysis for CPLR § 5015(a)(1). A potentially meritorious defense of succession rights was also established. The decision emphasized the court\u27s preference for deciding matters on their merits rather than by default

OCASIO REALTY LLC v. Alimi

The landlord initiated a holdover proceeding due to the tenant\u27s alleged failure to sign a rent-stabilized renewal lease. The court granted the tenant\u27s motion, dismissing the petition after it was confirmed that the tenant of record was deceased. The Housing Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over a deceased person, thereby extinguishing the landlord\u27s claims. Additionally, the court severed and dismissed the respondent-undertenant\u27s succession claim without prejudice, finding no need to substitute a personal representative for the deceased tenant\u27s estate since the lease had already expired

1750 Associates, LLC v. Elbaz

In this nonpayment proceeding, the landlord sought to recover rent for a rent-stabilized apartment after the lease expired and Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) funds were accepted. The Civil Court dismissed the petition, finding the landlord failed to establish a prima facie case as no lease was in effect, and acceptance of ERAP funds does not create an agreement under RPAPL 711(2) to pay rent. The Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the landlord\u27s motion to set aside the dismissal, holding that while ERAP acceptance restricts landlords from certain holdover actions for 12 months, it does not constitute an agreement by the tenant to pay rent for that period

West Side Marquis LLC v Lombard

In this nonpayment proceeding, the landlord moved to strike the tenant\u27s affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and the tenant cross-moved to amend their answer. The court partially granted the landlord\u27s motion, dismissing some defenses (personal jurisdiction for petition, breach of prior stipulation) and several counterclaims (duplicative, tort claims outside jurisdiction). However, defenses challenging predicate notice service, validity of rent, retaliatory eviction, harassment, and warranty of habitability were sustained. The tenant\u27s cross-motion to amend the answer to add rent overcharge defenses and a counterclaim, challenging the legal rent history and a prior agreement, was granted, finding them not devoid of merit

The NLRB’S Authority to Make Workers Whole

In December 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”) announced a modified make-whole remedial framework in Thryv, Inc.For all standard make-whole relief orders, the Board would order relief for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms that employees suffer as a result of an unfair labor practice. Proponents of this remedial design assert that this is consistent with the Board’s authority under section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On the other hand, opponents find that this design exceeds the Board’s statutory authority and conflicts with the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. This Note argues that the Thryv make-whole relief framework is a permissible exercise of the Board’s authority on both statutory and constitutional grounds. The proper approach toward the review of NLRB decisions is one that gives respect to the Board’s discretion and expertise in labor relations. Furthermore, Thryv remedies are equitable remedies that do not raise Seventh Amendment issues. Even if courts find an award of legal relief, this remedial framework fits within the public rights exception to the jury trial requirement. Ultimately, Thryv is consistent with Congress’s intent for the Board to have broad remedial discretion to give effect to the public policies of the NLRA