Search for: "York v York" Results 8581 - 8600 of 51,497
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2010, 4:16 am
The controlling statute of limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging an administrative decision may be set out in another lawHayes v City of NY Dept. of Citywide Admin. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 5:21 pm
A number if issues raised in the Complaint in the matter of " The People of the State of New York by ELIOT SPITZER Attorney General of The State of New York v Coventry First, LLC et al. should be sending chills down the backs of "structured settlement factoring vig takers". [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 12:15 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion for a 6-3 Supreme Court majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 3:53 am
There is no recognized tort of wrongful discharge in New York (see Lobosco v New York Tel. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 8:40 am
In People v Layou, 71 AD3d 1382 the court held it was an error to admit cocaine found on the defendant and at the arrest scene because there were deficiencies in the chain of custody. [read post]
Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal ... as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
30 May 2018, 4:37 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. [read post]