Search for: "Dept of Corrections"
Results 641 - 660
of 1,312
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Pataki, 259 AD2d 826, 827-828 [1999], lv dismissed and denied 93 NY2d 993 [1999]; Matter of McGuinn v City of New York, 219 AD2d 489, 490 [1995], lv dismissed and denied 87 NY2d 966 [1996]; Matter of Cassidy v New York City Dept. of Correction, 95 AD2d 733, 734-735 [1983]; Matter of Serth v New York State Dept. of Transp., 79 AD2d 801, 802 [1980]). [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 5:30 am
Supreme Court ruled that SUNY had failed to demonstrate that the requested documents were pertinent and material to the issues presented, explaining that “It is well settled that ‘[a]n arbitrator is not bound by principles of substantive law or rules of evidence, and may do justice and apply his or her own sense of law and equity to the facts as he or she finds them to be,’" citing Perilli v NYS Dept. of Correctional Services, 80 AD3d 617. [read post]
3 Feb 2013, 10:10 am
Shaffer, 943 NYS2d 672 [3rd Dept. 2012], examined these issues. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 8:00 am
., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Corr. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 10:08 am
Dept. of Natural Res., 530 S.E.2d 112 (2000) (rejecting constitutional challenges by three to two vote). [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 6:30 am
We recommend Injury Triage to correct this problem. [read post]
15 Jul 2018, 4:41 pm
I won’t be offended if you correct me. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:00 am
There was no question that the hearing officers findings were correct; Petitioner was guilty of all charges and specifications. [read post]
20 May 2014, 8:49 am
US Dept. of the Interior - 5/19/14. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
The Commissioner noted that "Petitioners are correct that the Commissioner has opined upon claims of discrimination in prior appeals (e.g., Appeal of D.B., 49 Ed Dept Rep 319, Decision No. 16,041). [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 9:09 am
., 110 AD3d 486, 486 [1st Dept 2013] ). [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
The Commissioner noted that "Petitioners are correct that the Commissioner has opined upon claims of discrimination in prior appeals (e.g., Appeal of D.B., 49 Ed Dept Rep 319, Decision No. 16,041). [read post]
7 Jun 2016, 9:39 am
If you supplied the correct information to DOS and2. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 4:00 am
” Noting that “based on [AD's] submissions, the District Court expressly found that she was employed by [the day care center] from April 2005 until September 17, 2007,” the Appellate Division said that it the District Court’s finding was incorrect, “then it was incumbent upon [AD] to move to correct the finding, or else be bound by it in subsequent legal proceedings. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Challenging the employer’s decision to terminate a probationary teacherMuller v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2016 NY Slip Op 05813, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentAndrea Muller was appointed by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] as an elementary school teacher subject to her satisfactory completion of a three-year probationary period commencing in August 2008. [read post]
7 May 2020, 10:20 am
(Dept of Ed Pres Release.)Related posts: Harvard Law Case Study Focuses on Ombuds and the 'Dear Colleague Letter'; IOA Takes a Stand on Title IX Issues; Watch Senator Question White House Title IX Expert on Role of Campus Ombuds; IOA Releases Memo Providing Legal Grounds for Ombuds Confidentiality in Title IX Matters; IOA Compiles Title IX Resources; IOA Surveys Higher Education Ombuds Confidentiality for Clery Act & Title IX Matters; U.S. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 4:00 am
Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the administrative decision was based on the hearing officer's credibility findings which are entitled to deference.Further, the Appellate Division noted that “an administrative tribunal can rely upon credible hearsay evidence to reach its determination,” citing Muldrow v NYS Dept. of Correction and Community Supervision, 110 AD3d 425.Citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, the court then found that dismissing Durudogan from the… [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 6:51 am
Term, 2nd Dept., decided 8/5/2015)Think late notice doesn't apply to no-fault claims? [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 11:34 am
The case is California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 3:18 am
Section 75 statute of limitations for initiating administrative disciplinary action does not apply when the charges would otherwise constitute a crime El Bey v New York City Dept. of Corrections, 294 A.D.2d 164 In the El Bey case, the exception to the statute of limitations for filing disciplinary action pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law where the charge would otherwise constitute a crime was applied by the Appellate Division in sustaining disciplinary action taken… [read post]
