Search for: "Grant v. Board of Retirement"
Results 41 - 60
of 947
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2024, 6:00 am
"The Medical Board determines whether a member applying for disability retirement benefits is disabled, and the Board of Trustees is bound by the Medical Board's finding that an applicant is, or is not, disabled for duty" (Matter of Russell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 155 AD3d 1046, 1046; see Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760). [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted Police Officer's CPLR Article 78 petition and remanded the matter to the Board "for an award of [ADR] benefits. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 4:00 am
Supreme Court granted Police Officer's CPLR Article 78 petition and remanded the matter to the Board "for an award of [ADR] benefits. [read post]
26 May 2022, 4:00 am
Dist., 125 AD3d at 1408-1409; Matter of Baker v Board of Educ., 29 AD3d at 575; Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango Forks Cent. [read post]
26 May 2022, 4:00 am
Dist., 125 AD3d at 1408-1409; Matter of Baker v Board of Educ., 29 AD3d at 575; Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango Forks Cent. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 12:57 pm
That conversation may now become even more urgent in light of the most recent decision of the SCC dealing with a Board decision, namely CBC v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 3:55 am
The Fourteenth Amendment means that a local or state government employer may not involuntarily retire a public employee from his or her work without due process of law, citing Board of Regents v Roth, 408 U.S. 564 and Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532; and3. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
*The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 3:10 am
Click here to get the whole opinion, Jelinek v. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
In our view, these factors rationally correspond to statutory language authorizing overtime for employees who "are required to work in excess of their regularly established hours of employment" at either their regular rate of pay or some other rate set by the governing board (General Municipal Law § 90 [emphasis added]; see Matter of Bascom v McCall, 221 AD2d 879, 880 [3d Dept 1995]; Conrad v Regan, 175 AD2d at… [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
In our view, these factors rationally correspond to statutory language authorizing overtime for employees who "are required to work in excess of their regularly established hours of employment" at either their regular rate of pay or some other rate set by the governing board (General Municipal Law § 90 [emphasis added]; see Matter of Bascom v McCall, 221 AD2d 879, 880 [3d Dept 1995]; Conrad v Regan, 175 AD2d at… [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 9:02 am
Supreme Court granted certiorari in Allen v. [read post]
11 May 2010, 8:34 am
(See Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement Systems v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 12:03 pm
Madigan v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am
Auburn Regional Medical Center (Granted )Docket: 11-1231Issue(s): Whether the 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicare payment determination made by a fiscal intermediary, 42 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am
Auburn Regional Medical Center (Granted )Docket: 11-1231Issue(s): Whether the 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicare payment determination made by a fiscal intermediary, 42 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 10:34 am
In Best v. [read post]
29 Aug 2017, 4:00 am
Reducing or discontinuing a NYSHIP participating employer's contributions towards a retired employee's health insurance premiumWeaver, et al, v Town of N. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 3:12 am
However, in City School District of City of Emira v Newcomb, 266 A.D.2d 622, the Appellate Division said that: “… authority exists to support the general proposition that a retirement letter may be withdrawn prior to a legally binding acceptance by a board of education,” citing Matter of Totevski v Board of Educ., 178 Misc 2d 758; Matter of Petnick, 14 Educ Dept Rep 141; Matter of Goodrow, 7 Educ Dept Rep 39; and Matter of Lawrence, 6… [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 7:40 pm
On the final argument day of the May term, the Illinois Supreme Court heard argument in Prazen v. [read post]