Search for: "Kelly v. Administrator"
Results 181 - 200
of 665
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2013, 5:17 am
Staum v. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 11:35 am
The Court denied a motion to recuse Chief Justice Kelley in Grievance Administrator v. [read post]
6 Sep 2013, 7:30 pm
Counsel states that because of the beneficiary's behavior, her firm performed services that far exceeded those typically required in estate administration. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 3:26 am
Under the circumstances, said the court, "[t]he penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness, citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, in support of its ruling. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 10:40 am
Jones v. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 11:22 am
In Ryan v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 7:45 am
TEGELER v. [read post]
19 Feb 2017, 9:15 am
Since Yamataya v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 8:26 pm
[A] penalty must be upheld unless it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness'" (Matter of County of Erie v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 121 AD3d 1564, 1566 [4th Dept 2014], quoting Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; see also Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v International Fin. [read post]
15 Nov 2017, 5:59 am
The court reserved until a later date any ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Vidal v. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 12:55 pm
Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 12:55 pm
Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 10:04 am
No. 403 v. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 10:50 pm
The Court denied two other cases from Pennsylvania seeking to bock the certification of the election: Kelly v. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 6:35 pm
Kelly. [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 5:30 am
In Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli, 30 NY3d 674, the Court of Appeals held that "For the purpose of Retirement and Social Security Law, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that the disability was the result of an accident, which is defined as "a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact". [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 5:30 am
In Matter of Kelly v DiNapoli, 30 NY3d 674, the Court of Appeals held that "For the purpose of Retirement and Social Security Law, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that the disability was the result of an accident, which is defined as "a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact". [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 11:56 am
NEIL KELLY, CLERK [read post]
29 May 2024, 6:00 am
On the contrary, the charges notified petitioner in detail of the conduct charged (see Wolfe v Kelly, 79 AD3d 406, 407, 410 [1st Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 17 NY3d 844 [2011]). [read post]
29 May 2024, 6:00 am
On the contrary, the charges notified petitioner in detail of the conduct charged (see Wolfe v Kelly, 79 AD3d 406, 407, 410 [1st Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 17 NY3d 844 [2011]). [read post]
