Tag:

上海男士高端会所靠谱吗

How New York’s Foreclosure Rates Compare by Borough

first_imgSign up for DS News Daily in Daily Dose, Featured, Foreclosure, News Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Related Articles How New York’s Foreclosure Rates Compare by Borough Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Tagged with: Foreclosure Homes New York propertyshark Previous: The State of the Economy and Housing Next: Is the Housing Market Prepared for the Next Crisis? About Author: Staff Writer Since 2018 began, first-time foreclosures in New York City have consistently declined, and the third quarter has only seen this trend extend, according to a report by PropertyShark. Foreclosures in the city’s five boroughs are down overall 17 percent year-over-year, or 19 percent if one calculates from one quarter to the next. This is a noticeable drop, with 716 unique cases reported this quarter—the first-time foreclosures in the city have fallen below 800 for the first time since the first quarter of 2017. Citywide, pre-foreclosures dropped 36 percent year-over-year, or 15 percent if one calculates quarter-over-quarter.The report reveals that certain parts of the city witnessed the number of foreclosures drop significantly more than others, and a couple of major neighborhoods even saw their foreclosure rates stagnate. Of all the New York boroughs, Queens was the only one that saw an increase in foreclosures year-over-year. But this increase is slight—at just 5 percent— and can be interpreted as leveling off since, quarter-over-quarter, the neighborhood still saw a 15 percent contraction, the report said. Brooklyn meanwhile saw its number of first-time foreclosures barely budge, dropping just 1 percent year-over-year but still falling a full 10 percent since Q2.The other three boroughs, however, saw their number of foreclosures drop dramatically this quarter, the report indicated. The largest dip was seen in Manhattan, where just 22 properties foreclosed on marks an impressive 44 percent decrease. This breaks a record for lowest number of foreclosures in Manhattan since the first quarter of 2014.  The Bronx saw the second largest decline in foreclosures at 43 percent year-over-year, though there was an increase of 10 percent since last quarter. Staten Island also saw a very sharp decline in foreclosures, a total 40 percent year-over-year or—even more striking—67 percent if one calculates quarter-over-quarter. The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Share Save The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Home / Daily Dose / How New York’s Foreclosure Rates Compare by Borough The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Foreclosure Homes New York propertyshark 2018-10-08 Radhika Ojha Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago  Print This Post Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago October 8, 2018 1,979 Views Subscribelast_img read more

Justice UU Lalit Recuses From NLSIU Appeal Against Karnataka HC Order Quashing 25% Domicile Reservation

Top StoriesJustice UU Lalit Recuses From NLSIU Appeal Against Karnataka HC Order Quashing 25% Domicile Reservation Radhika Roy12 Jan 2021 11:08 PMShare This – xJustice UU Lalit of the Supreme Court recused himself from a matter pertaining to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against aKarnataka High Court order which struck down the 25 percent domicile reservation at the National Law School of India University.Justice Lalit informed the Counsels present that he had represented a member of the governing board previously and would not be able…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginJustice UU Lalit of the Supreme Court recused himself from a matter pertaining to an appeal filed by the State of Karnataka against aKarnataka High Court order which struck down the 25 percent domicile reservation at the National Law School of India University.Justice Lalit informed the Counsels present that he had represented a member of the governing board previously and would not be able to hear the appeal. Accordingly, the Court directed for the appeal to be listed before another Bench. On 29th September last year, a Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ravi V Hosmani of the High Court pronounced the order and said the “The amendment is ultra vires to the act. The State government has no State and has no direct say in the functioning of the law school. It is an autonomous institute and not aided by the state government.” The Bench said the Executive Council of the University has powers to introduce reservation and “If we allow this thing (state reservation) to be done virtually there will be two centers of control, one with executive council and other by state which will be an unhealthy trend.” It bserved that, “by the impugned amendment what is sought to be created is a state quota which is not permissible.” The Bench also stated “NLSIU is on par with AIIMS, IIT and IIM, where there is no reservation quota.” It has in the order said “This law school is not on par with other law schools. Other schools are giving reservations thus it is not necessary that Karnataka must also do it.” Moreover, comparing the reservation in NLSIU with other law schools, the bench has said “Other law schools came up with reservations as students were not getting in Karnataka school under the 80 seats quota.” The Bench rejected the argument of the State Government that the object of reservation was to retain talent in Karnataka. It said “Karnataka Students aspiration cannot be said to be in Karnataka alone when opportunities are available overseas and India.” It was further suggested that “Executive Council of NLSIU consider Reservation for WOMEN and ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS OF THE SOCIETY at the law school.” The Court has concluded by saying “No scientific study is conducted, the reservation impact is contrary to what is the purpose of the law school. The impugned reservation is struck down as it does not meet the twin test of Article 14. In March, the Karnataka State Assembly passed the National Law School Of India (Amendment) Act, 2020, which received the Karnataka Governor’s assent on April 27. As per this amendment, NLSIU should reserve horizontally twenty-five percent of seats for ‘students of Karnataka’. The amendment inserted the following proviso in Section 4 of the National Law School of India Act :- “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the regulations made thereunder, the school shall reserve horizontally twenty-five percent of seats for students of Karnataka.” As per the explanation of this Section, “student of Karnataka” means a student who has studied in any one of the recognized educational institutions in the State for a period of not less than ten years preceding to the qualifying examination.Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story read more