Search for: "U S Dept of Transportation"
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2024, 4:03 am
RSD857 LLC v Wright 2024 NY Slip Op 31674(U) May 13, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 158125/2022 Judge: Paul A. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 6:00 am
While some companies have made the argument successfully that they had no knowledge of a partner’s intentions to transport their goods to New York (Ortiz v Food Mach. of Am., Inc.) (2014 NY Slip Op. 31868[U] [Bronx Ct. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm
[FN1] It is well settled that, "[u]nder FOIL, agency records are presumptively available for public inspection" (Matter of Empire Ch. of Associated Bldrs. and Contractors, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Transportation, ___ AD3d ___, ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 06852, *1 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm
[FN1] It is well settled that, "[u]nder FOIL, agency records are presumptively available for public inspection" (Matter of Empire Ch. of Associated Bldrs. and Contractors, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Transportation, ___ AD3d ___, ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 06852, *1 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 3:10 am
In one instance, BSF billed $2,762 for an associate and two paralegals to transport banker’s boxes to a pretrial conference (id., ,r 188 and at 647 [Ex 18]). [read post]
15 Aug 2022, 3:48 am
“Grammatical Irregularities” Don’t Govern Operating Agreement’s Capital Call Provision Chen v 697 Dekalb LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 32418(U) [Sup Ct Kings County July 18, 2022]. [read post]
20 May 2022, 1:56 pm
Montana Dept. of Revenue, involving state constitution prohibitions on state aid to "sectarian" institutions, explained that in the 19th century, "sectarian" was not a synonym for "religious. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 1:16 pm
At the core of these principles is an important new one, though one that waits for greater elaboration elsewhere--the need for reasoned decision making subject to broad review by the courts (e.g., Dept of Commerce v, NY, No. 18–966. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 5:05 am
Schoolman Transportation System, Inc. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am
But the Court instead applied ejusdem generis to read "any other class of workers" as covering only employment contracts of transportation workers, by analogy to the preceding terms ("seamen" and "railroad employees"): The wording of [the statute] calls for the application of the maxim ejusdem generis …. [read post]
15 May 2020, 3:00 am
Justice Dept. [read post]
11 May 2020, 5:41 am
Indeed, it has been held that one may assume a duty, which initially did not exist, and may be held liable where his or her affirmative action adversely affected that plaintiff and he or she failed to act reasonably (see Arroyo v We Transport, Inc., 118 AD3d 648, 649 [2d Dept 2014]; Gordon v Muchnik, 180 AD2d 715 [2d Dept 1992]). [read post]
29 Dec 2019, 7:23 pm
Phrase at (one's) discretion attested from 1570s (earlier in (one's) discretion, late 14c.), from sense of "power to decide or judge, power of acting according to one's own judgment" (late 14c.). [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 5:22 am
Thus, a plaintiff must plead the attorney’s intentional deceit damages caused by the deceit (see Doscher v Mannatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 148 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2017]). [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:43 pm
Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 8:30 am
” State Dept. of Transportation v. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 6:00 am
S. [read post]
30 Oct 2016, 4:19 am
Slip Op. 50223(U) (1st Dept. 2003) (At the pleading stage it was sufficient to merely allege that children were left home alone where they were five years and seven months old respectively, the mother lied about the children’s supervision and the seven month old fell out of bed); People v. [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 1:23 pm
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said, in an era when drivers are more distracted than ever. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 2:54 pm
Dept of Commerce, 490 So.2d 1294,1296 (Fla 1st DCA 1986) As 440.39 (3) (b) states the JCC has no jurisdiction to resolve a dispute over the worker’s compensation carrier’s lien and payback from the claimant’s settlement against the at fault party. [read post]
