Search for: "Doe v. Coughlin"
Results 21 - 40
of 96
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
" * In Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, the court said that the threat to file formal disciplinary charges if the employee did not resign does not constitute duress as it is not duress to threaten to do what one has the legal right to do.The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_01905.htm===================The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 4:00 am
In Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, the employee was told that if he did not submit his resignation immediately he would be served with disciplinary charges. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 4:15 pm
Zargary v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 4:00 am
As to the issue of a resignation being coerced from an employee or obtained under duress, the courts have concluded that where an appointing authority has the right, if not the duty, to take disciplinary action against an individual, "it was not duress to threaten to do what one had the legal right to do" [Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643].Rychlick, in the presence of a union representative, was told that unless he submitted his resignation formal disciplinary charges… [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 7:37 am
Coughlin, 344 F.3d 282, 291 (2d Cir. 2003). [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:09 am
” Coughlin v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
"The Circuit Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the matter to the lower court for further proceedings.In Rychlick v Coughlin, 99 A.D.2d 863, aff'd 63 NY2d 643, the Appellate Division opined that threatening to do what the appointing authority has a right to do – in this instance filing disciplinary charges against Rychlick if he refused to resign from his position -- did not constitute coercion so as to make… [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
"The Circuit Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the matter to the lower court for further proceedings.In Rychlick v Coughlin, 99 A.D.2d 863, aff'd 63 NY2d 643, the Appellate Division opined that threatening to do what the appointing authority has a right to do – in this instance filing disciplinary charges against Rychlick if he refused to resign from his position -- did not constitute coercion so as to make… [read post]
23 May 2008, 1:41 am
As the Court of Appeals ruled in Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, court pointed out that threatening to do what the appointing authority had a right to do -- file disciplinary charges -- did not constitute coercion so as to make the resignation involuntary. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 11:28 am
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, et al. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 6:17 am
" In 1996, the Second Circuit held in Jolly v. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 4:47 am
Curlin is very different from Coughlin, Conklin and Hamlin, as different as are the ordinary words 'poplin' and 'gremlin' noted by applicant. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 6:48 am
Coughlin. [read post]
27 May 2015, 6:00 am
Thus, said the court, “[f]urther action by DOE was not required nor did Petitioner's letters to DOE after that date extend the statute of limitations, citing Lubin v Board of Education of the City of New York, 60 NY2d 974.In any event, the Appellate Division noted that there was “a rational basis for DOE's determination terminating Petitioner’s employment based on her resignation in the face of disciplinary charges, and the… [read post]
26 May 2009, 3:57 am
Coughlin, 854 F. [read post]
25 May 2010, 4:17 am
Employee’s resignation rescinded based on Supreme Court's finding that it was coercedMiller v New York City Dept. of Education, 2010 NY Slip Op 31210(U), May 11, 2010, Supreme Court, New York County, Judge Jane S. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm
While Public Officers Law § 89 (3) (a) requires that the records sought be "reasonably described," an agency denying a FOIL request for lack of a reasonable description "bears the burden to establish that the descriptions were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the documents sought" (Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York State Police, 207 AD3d 971, 974 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Konigsberg… [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm
While Public Officers Law § 89 (3) (a) requires that the records sought be "reasonably described," an agency denying a FOIL request for lack of a reasonable description "bears the burden to establish that the descriptions were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the documents sought" (Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York State Police, 207 AD3d 971, 974 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Konigsberg… [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:13 am
In Colon v. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, opining although "Public Officers Law §17(3)(a) provides that the State shall indemnify its employees for a judgment or settlement provided that the act or omission which was the subject of the judgment or settlement occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his [or her] public employment or duties," that duty does not extend to cases in which "the injury or damage resulted from intentional… [read post]
