Search for: "New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Association, Inc."
Results 21 - 28
of 28
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2017, 5:30 am
Challenging an employee's termination during his or her disciplinary probation periodWoods v State Univ. of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 03083, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIn 2013 a member of a collective bargaining unit [Employee] represented by the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. [read post]
26 Aug 2016, 6:21 am
At the time of the events giving rise to his prosecution, he was an officer in the New York City Police Department living with his wife, Kathleen Mangan, and their infant daughter in Forest Hills. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 2:40 am
Source: New York Legislative Retrieval Service (LRS), August 20, 2007. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 12:10 pm
(ALJ Maier, U-27408, 3/21/08)ARTHUR PENNEFATHER AND NEW YORK STATE COURT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. [read post]
27 May 2016, 4:00 am
Imposing a "disciplinary probation period" as part of the penalty or settlement of a disciplinary actionWoods v State Univ. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 04084, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentThe genesis of Woods v State University of New York [SUNY], was Norman Woods being served with a notice of discipline issued in accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] negotiated by State and Woods’ collective bargaining… [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 12:00 pm
His essays have appeared in The New York Times, The New Yorker and The London Review of Books. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm
" Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (10th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionRespondents' supplemental briefPetitioner's supplemental briefAmicus brief of the National Congress of American IndiansPetitioner's replyCVSG Information:Invited: February 22, 2011Filed: May 27, 2011 (Deny) Title: City of New York v. [read post]
29 Oct 2011, 2:33 pm
Plaintiff-Appellee the State of Wyoming and Intervenor-Appellee the Colorado Mining Association (CMA) asked the Court to affirm the district court's order on the grounds that rule did not violate the Wilderness Act and NEPA. [read post]
