Search for: "Roman v City of New York" Results 21 - 40 of 166
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2019, 6:36 pm by Jeffrey M. Goldstein
A marketer/seller/installer of walk-in bathtubs in the New York and New Jersey area could qualify as a franchise with standing to assert counterclaims against Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. under the franchising laws of those states and Connecticut and Rhode Island, the federal district court in New York City has ruled. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 8:21 am
Recently, the New York Court of Appeals had a chance to review some issues under state law raised by Crawford. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 10:14 am by Greg Mersol
City of New York.pdf Case No. 07-CV-2067 (June 6, 2011), the United States Justice Department challenged a test and related procedures used by the New York City Fire Department on the grounds that they had a disparate impact on minority applicants. [read post]
24 May 2007, 1:09 am
New York City Employees' Retirement System NASSAU COUNTYCivil PracticeIncorrect Date of Entry of Order in Notice of Entry Invalidates Notice, Does Not Start Deadlines Running Crystal Cove Seafood Corp. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 8:20 pm
In 1985, the New York City Director of Personal disqualified petitioner for medical reasons based on the psychiatrists’ reports. [read post]
16 May 2008, 1:14 am
City of New YorkKINGS COUNTYAttorneys' FeesDefendant Estopped From Asserting Counsel Did NotPerform Services; Counsel Entitled to Charging LiensN.K. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Further, opined the Appellate Division, "[c]haracterizing a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation as one for breach of contract is unavailing to avoid the four-month limitations period," citing Roman v City Empls. [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 12:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Further, opined the Appellate Division, "[c]haracterizing a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation as one for breach of contract is unavailing to avoid the four-month limitations period," citing Roman v City Empls. [read post]