Search for: "Dietz v. Dietz"
Results 21 - 40
of 174
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Aug 2020, 5:38 am
The Court of Appeals draws guidance from a recent Supreme Court ruling, Dietz v. [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 8:08 pm
The State, however, argued Edwards’ case was more like the facts in the cases of like Dietz v. [read post]
14 Jul 2020, 9:13 am
In State v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:23 am
MCMILLAN V. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:12 am
DIETZ, Judge. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:10 am
STATE V. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 2:05 pm
Judge Berger wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Dietz. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 8:16 am
Contents include:Amaney Jamal & Helen V. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 7:51 am
Co. v Batista, 165 AD3d 997, 998; Doviak v Finkelstein &Partners, LLP, 90 AD3d 696, 699; Quinn v Walsh, 18 AD3d 638; Brill v Friends World Coll., 133 AD2d 729). [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 3:32 am
Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, these allegations are sufficient to state a viable cause of action to disgorge legal fees (see Jay Dietz & Assoc. of Nassau County, Ltd. v Breslow & Walker, LLP, 153 AD3d at 506). [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 4:08 am
v Corddry Carpenter Dietz & Zack, 253 AD2d 89, 91-92 (1st Dept 1999). [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 5:03 am
Dietz v. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 9:44 am
A narrow extension of Ford v. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 12:00 am
In Dietz v. [read post]
22 Nov 2017, 7:33 am
Application of the forfeiture test set forth in In re Micron pursuant to Rule 1 and the Supreme Court's decision in [Dietz v. [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 9:21 am
Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. [read post]
