Search for: "Matter of Gomez v Gomez" Results 1 - 20 of 243
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jun 2024, 8:58 am by Telecommunications Practice Group
Following Commissioner Gomez’s confirmation, the Democrat-let FCC moved immediately to re-implement net neutrality rules. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 4:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
., Inc. v Siegel & Reiner, LLP 2024 NY Slip Op 50292(U) Decided on March 20, 2024 Supreme Court, Bronx County Gomez, J. is the kind of legal malpractice case that comes up often enough to support the idea that real estate in NYC is a paramount, driving economic force, and that the extensive lawyering necessary results in many legal malpractice cases. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:19 am by Eric Fruits
Carr cited the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 3:33 pm by John Elwood
(relisted after the June 22 conference) Gomez-Vargas v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Matter of Gomez v Hernandez, 50 AD3d 404, the Appellate Division opined "Even [well-qualified] candidates such as [Plaintiff] ... can be denied [appointment] provided appropriate discretion is used within the confines of the 'one-of-three' rule in Civil Service Law §61.* The court observed, "it is not arbitrary and capricious for an agency to provide no reason for an appointing official's exercise of discretion in declining to appoint… [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Matter of Gomez v Hernandez, 50 AD3d 404, the Appellate Division opined "Even [well-qualified] candidates such as [Plaintiff] ... can be denied [appointment] provided appropriate discretion is used within the confines of the 'one-of-three' rule in Civil Service Law §61.* The court observed, "it is not arbitrary and capricious for an agency to provide no reason for an appointing official's exercise of discretion in declining to appoint… [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 4:47 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Sebrow v Sebrow (69 Misc 3d 1064 [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2020]), stands for the proposition, expressed by other courts in cases like Matter of Gusman (178 AD2d 597 [2d Dept 1991]), and Isaacson v Beau Label Corp., (93 AD2d 880 [2d Dept 1983]), that written transfer restrictions or buy-sell agreements governing closely-held business interests will trump, and potentially defeat, conflicting testamentary bequests. [read post]