Search for: "V. M. A.D."
Results 61 - 80
of 232
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jul 2016, 4:46 am
., and this is 2016 A.D. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
D’Antonio and Derek M. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 4:15 am
In such cases both the execution of the required notarization and the physical mailing must be timely. ** See, also, City of Cortland v White, 114 A.D.2d 64. [read post]
28 Aug 2007, 10:00 am
Jackson, 272 A.D.2d 965; City of Tonawanda v. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 6:15 am
Hapeman, 229 A.D.2d 807, 810, 646 N.Y.S.2d 583; Smith v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 10:01 pm
His July 4, 2012 decision in Mojdeh M. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 9:14 am
For this proposition, the appellate court cited McCance v DeWitt, 118 A.D.3d 759, 987 N.Y.S.2d 174 (2nd Dept. 2014). [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 2:12 am
M & A Const, CQrD. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 9:19 am
In Gordon v. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 2:55 am
The former probationer’s conclusory allegations that the employer acted in bad faith do not meet this burden or warrant a hearing.In another probationary termination case, Williams v Franklin Square Union Free School District, 261 A.D.2d 628, the Appellate Division dismissed an Article 78 action brought by Jeanne M. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 3:09 pm
Co., 2009 WL 3793590, A.D. 09-11444 (Butler Co. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 2:30 pm
V Dean E. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 6:21 am
Matter of Janice M. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am
Appellate Division, First Department In proceeding to establish standing to assert parental rights in seeking visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70, the court has the discretion to direct “more monied” party to pay the other party’s counsel fee In Kelly G v Circe H, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2019 WL 6869009 (1stDept.,2019), the Appellate Division held, as a matter of first impression for the… [read post]
22 May 2009, 2:57 pm
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 11:06 am
., v. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 2:32 am
” Levine Samuel, LLP Gerald M. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 8:23 pm
Stewart M. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 8:09 am
Finesse Wireless LLC v. [read post]
15 May 2013, 6:55 am
the Appellate Division, First Department rejected the rule established in Baraby v Baraby, 250 A.D.2d 201, 681 N.Y.S.2d 826 (3d Dept, 1998), that in an equally shared custody case the parent who has the greater income should be considered the noncustodial parent for purposes of support. [read post]
