The former wife of Rolling Stone Mick Jagger has lived in the rent-stabilized apartment for some 20 years and argued that it was her primary residence and her landlord should be barred from evicting her.

A British citizen who was born in Nicaragua, Jagger is in the United States on a B-2 tourist visa.

Her lawyer, Ryan Goldstein, had argued that a mold problem in the apartment had made it unlivable and that she had stopped paying the $4,614 a month rent in 2003.

Goldstein was not immediately available for comment.

The landlord, Katz Park Avenue Corp, countered that Jagger was in the United States on a tourist visa and, as a result, is not eligible to maintain permanent residence.

The 3-2 decision by New York State Supreme Court's Appellate Division reversed a lower court's finding.

The decision, which noted that the environmental activist maintains a luxury apartment in London's Belgravia section, said Jagger will also have to pay back rent and other fees.

Tenants in rent-stabilized apartments are protected from sharp increases in rent. Once a tenant leaves a rent-stabilized apartment, the landlord is free to charge market rate.

Canada's biggest toy maker said it was awaiting a court ruling on Wednesday about its fight against claims in a consumer advice magazine that one of its products contained elevated levels of lead.

Mega Brands is seeking an injunction in Quebec Superior Court to stop distribution of Protegez-Vous magazine, which the company claims used the wrong test on its plastic toy building blocks and published misleading results.

A ruling is expected at 2:15 p.m. on Wednesday, said Mega Brands spokesman Harold Chizick.

Protegez-Vous stood by the accuracy of its test results, several media reports said. A spokesperson for the magazine was not immediately available for comment.

Shares of Mega Brands sank to an all-time low of C$15.45 on the Toronto Stock Exchange, before reversing direction in early afternoon, to gain 5 Canadian cents to C$16.10.

Mega Brands said Protegez-Vous should not have used a total lead test on its molded plastic blocks, because that analyses paint or the coating on a product. It should have used a lead migration test, which the company called "the global standard" for uncoated plastic products.

"That's a test that simulates a child sucking on a plastic toy and how much lead will be transferred through the saliva," Chizick said.

The company wants to prevent the sale and further distribution of Protegez-Vous in advance of its scheduled newsstand distribution on Oct. 19. The French-language publication has already been mailed to subscribers, it said.

"While we respect and support Protegez-Vous' commitment to informing consumers about product safety, in this case, they made a very grave error," Mega Brands Chief Executive Marc Bertrand said in a statement.

There have been several high-profile recalls this year of toys made in China that contained excessive levels of lead in paint or involved small, easily ingested magnets.

Health Canada said on Wednesday preliminary results from its product safety lab indicate "no quantifiable total lead content" in the plastic. The toy was sampled from a retail location in Quebec late last week.

"Lead can be tested on objects in different ways and the results can vary greatly," said spokeswoman Joey Rathwell. "So we did our own testing, in the way that we test paint within hard plastic, and we found from our test that there was no lead in the product."

The company said the Canadian Toy Association has agreed the wrong test was used and that safety testing lab Bureau Veritas said the Canadian-made toy meets international safety standards.

Mega Brands is still recovering from an extensive, costly recall of some faulty Magnetix building sets. One child has died and 27 have suffered serious intestinal injuries after swallowing small, powerful magnets in the toys.

But in Monday's ruling, the court refused to apply that protection to hundreds of other paroled sex offenders, saying they needed to look to lower courts to get their own injunctions.

Parolees' attorneys said they are not immediately sure if they will ask a lower court for an injunction covering the affected parolees.

The state Supreme Court is considering whether the law is constitutional as it applies to the four parolees, meaning attorneys representing additional sex offenders could simply wait for a decision.

"We have to give it some time to figure what our next move is," said Don Specter, director of the San Rafael-based nonprofit Prison Law Office.

The group filed the lawsuit with another firm on behalf of the four parolees and sought the wider injunction.

Parole agents began the sweeps last week under the law, which sets strict residency requirements for recently released sex offenders to keep them away from children. About 850 parolees were in violation.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered agents to start revoking paroles despite the high court's decision to block the arrests of the four sex offenders who were violating the residency requirements.

The state corrections department could not immediately say how many offenders have been arrested since the crackdown began, spokesman Seth Unger said.

The state had said it had notified 1,800 parolees that they were in violation of the residency portion of the law, and gave them 45 days to move. As of Thursday, the state said, roughly 850 parolees were still in violation.

Jessica's Law, passed with 70 percent support from California voters last November, is named after a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender in 2005. It prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather.

Critics say Jessica's Law is forcing sex offenders to become homeless or move from towns and cities into rural areas because they cannot find housing that meets the law's requirements in more populated areas.

Similar laws in Florida, Iowa and other states also have led to questions over where sex offenders can live once they finish serving their prison sentences.

Money laundering typically involves an effort to make it appear that money from an illegal transaction, often drug sales, is legitimate.

Several federal appeals courts have said that concealing money that is going across the U.S. border, without proving why, also is a crime under the federal law concerning international money laundering.

A three-judge panel reversed Cuellar's conviction on a 2-1 vote, saying that prosecutors had to show that the defendant's activities were designed to create the appearance of legitimate wealth.

Acknowledging that the money likely was drug proceeds and that Cuellar knew it, the appeals panel said the government did not prove that Cuellar was trying "to create the appearance of legitimate wealth." He could have been charged with smuggling cash, the judges said.

The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that decision and affirmed the conviction, declaring that it makes no sense to say that Congress chose the word "conceal" to apply only in a certain way.

"Concealment of the funds during the U.S. leg of the trip is a vital part of the transportation design or plan to get the funds out of this country," the full appeals court said.

In asking the justices to take the case, Cuellar's lawyers said the appeals court decision incorrectly expands the scope of the money laundering law.

Defense lawyers who urged the court to hear Cuellar's case said the concealment provision — with its maximum prison term of 20 years and fine of $500,000 — has proven highly useful to prosecutors in forcing guilty pleas from defendants.

"The mere threat of a money laundering charge can be a powerful weapon in the prosecutor's negotiating arsenal," the brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said.

Had Cuellar been charged with smuggling, he would have faced up to five years in prison, the defense lawyers said.

Authorities said Clark violated a court order in August 2006 by placing several calls to his father-in-law. He had been charged with multiple counts of failure to comply with the order.

Clark's wife, Monica Rodriguez Gonzalez, filed for a domestic violence protective order in June 2006, claiming that Clark had abused her. The order prohibited Clark from having any contact with her and eight other people, including their child.

Clark was disqualified after reaching the finals of the popular TV show's second season in 2003 for failing to reveal a previous arrest.

He later accused "Idol" judge Paula Abdul of coaching him and initiating an affair. She denied his allegations, and Fox TV cleared Abdul of any wrongdoing.