Search for: "Grant v. Public Works, Dept" Results 21 - 40 of 377
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Oct 2010, 3:09 am
Div., 3rd Dept., 262 AD2d 925Matyjczuk v Delphi Automotive Sys., App. [read post]
City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 514, 621 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1st Dept. 1995), a contractor sued the City of New York to be compensated for the additional work it said it performed to complete the brickwork on a public works construction project. [read post]
3 May 2018, 3:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
However, the Court of Appeals instructs that FOIL is to be "liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (Matter of Town of Waterford v New York State Dept. of Envtl. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
Employee required to answer employer's work-related inquiriesSpielbauer v County of Santa Clara [Calif.], Supreme Court of California, decided February 9, 2009. [read post]
4 Aug 2012, 5:22 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
The original for this post is Does The Philly Fire Dept’s Social Media Policy Violate The First Amendment? [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The employer's annual reviewing and approving requests for the assignment an agency vehicle to an employee does not create a past practiceSpence v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08594, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentCertain employees serving with Department of Transportation [DOT] were assigned state-owned vehicles for work and, in some instances, several employees seeking to use the vehicle for commuting as well as for work was… [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The employer's annual reviewing and approving requests for the assignment an agency vehicle to an employee does not create a past practiceSpence v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08594, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentCertain employees serving with Department of Transportation [DOT] were assigned state-owned vehicles for work and, in some instances, several employees seeking to use the vehicle for commuting as well as for work was… [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 6:43 pm
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY – PUBLIC ADJUSTER COMPENSATION – "VALUABLE SERVICES"Public Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 7:24 am
  In granting Utica First's motion for summary judgment, Justice Victor reluctantly declined to invalidate the employee and roofing work exclusions of what Justice Victor called Rauman's "worthless" and "inadequate"  policy with Utica First on public policy grounds: As stated by the Court Of Appeals in Slayko v. [read post]