Search for: "McGUIRE v. McGUIRE"
Results 41 - 60
of 536
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Oct 2021, 3:00 am
Citing Matter of Verma v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 192 AD3d 616, the Appellate Division observed that "a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing for any reason or no reason at all, as long as the dismissal was not unlawful or in bad faith. [read post]
11 Oct 2021, 4:54 am
Tradesman Program Managers LLC v Doyle, 2020 NY Slip Op 32452[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2020]; Barrison v D’Amato & Lynch, LLP, 2019 NY Slip Op 30905[U] [Sup Ct, NY County]; Lentini v 219 W. 20th St. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 3:41 am
The case and the decision by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department in McGuire v McGuire is not as simple as it sounds. [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 7:34 am
The case reference is Kaplan v. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
• Roger V. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 12:22 pm
• Roger V. [read post]
19 May 2021, 11:21 am
Beauharnais v. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Childs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. [read post]
29 Mar 2021, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Childs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. [read post]
1 Mar 2021, 4:00 am
In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees before the completion of their required probationary period as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for… [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 4:00 am
" * In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals held that “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad… [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 5:55 pm
Fields v. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 1:30 am
Officer appealed.The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Messenger v State of New York Dept. of Corr. [read post]
16 Jul 2020, 1:30 am
Officer appealed.The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Messenger v State of New York Dept. of Corr. [read post]
15 May 2020, 3:56 am
Mazars and Trump v. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division dismissed Retiree's Article 78 petition.Citing Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, the Appellate Division ruled that the Authority's denial of Retiree's request was not arbitrary and capricious as:1. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division dismissed Retiree's Article 78 petition.Citing Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, the Appellate Division ruled that the Authority's denial of Retiree's request was not arbitrary and capricious as:1. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 3:01 pm
That was the situation before Judge McGuire in Global Textile Alliance, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 10:09 am
"It would have been more accurate had the appointing authority indicated that there were 25 days remaining in the employee's probationary period and that although he had completed his minimum period of probation, he had not yet attained tenure in the position and thus the employee, although appointed to the position as a permanent employee, was not entitled to a Civil Service Law §75 pretermination hearing or an equivalent disciplinary procedure set out in the controlling… [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 10:09 am
"It would have been more accurate had the appointing authority indicated that there were 25 days remaining in the employee's probationary period and that although he had completed his minimum period of probation, he had not yet attained tenure in the position and thus the employee, although appointed to the position as a permanent employee, was not entitled to a Civil Service Law §75 pretermination hearing or an equivalent disciplinary procedure set out in the controlling… [read post]
