Search for: "Grant v. Board of Retirement" Results 41 - 60 of 947
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Dec 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"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]
26 May 2022, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Howard Knopf
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]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
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 by Public Employment Law Press
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]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am by Kali Borkoski
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 by Kali Borkoski
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]
29 Aug 2017, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
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 by Kirk Jenkins
On the final argument day of the May term, the Illinois Supreme Court heard argument in Prazen v. [read post]