Search for: "York v York"
Results 8721 - 8740
of 51,499
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
*The Appellate Division, citing Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 2:00 am
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Gardner v. [read post]
5 Jan 2007, 5:25 am
Bd. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 4:00 am
Workers’ Compensation held the exclusive remedy available to an employee injured on the way to a work-related meetingSulecki v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 04706, Decided on June 3, 2010, Appellate Division, First DepartmentRobert Sulecki, an engineer employed by the New York City Department of Design and Construction, was injured after tripping on a sidewalk adjoining a City-owned building while on his way to a work-related meeting. [read post]
19 May 2009, 4:15 am
Arbitrator to determine if CBA's disciplinary procedure applies in the event an employee is summarily dismissed due to the lack of certificationMatter of New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs. v Ortiz, 2009 NY Slip Op 03809, Decided on May 14, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentNYPPL recently summarize the decision in Matter of New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. v Lanterman, 2009 NY Slip Op 03808, Third… [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 9:30 am
Fortunately, I have good news and I won't leave you hangin'...People v. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 9:48 am
The question in Norse Energy v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 3:19 am
In Broida, the court concluded that jurisdiction could be exercised over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation doing business in New York, unless New York was an inappropriate or inconvenient forum (id. at 91-92; see Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 AD2d 179, 185-186 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 608 [1987]). [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 3:19 am
In Broida, the court concluded that jurisdiction could be exercised over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation doing business in New York, unless New York was an inappropriate or inconvenient forum (id. at 91-92; see Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 AD2d 179, 185-186 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 608 [1987]). [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 3:19 am
In Broida, the court concluded that jurisdiction could be exercised over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation doing business in New York, unless New York was an inappropriate or inconvenient forum (id. at 91-92; see Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 AD2d 179, 185-186 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 608 [1987]). [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 9:22 am
Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 8:45 am
Judicial Dissolution Petition Requires 50 Percent Shareholder That decision, Balkind v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 9:02 am
Meanwhile, two men were arrested for allegedly buying weapons and plotting to attack New York City synagogues. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 2:30 pm
For angry New York sports fans, who weren't able to watch Game 1 of the National League Championship Series over the weekend, the good news is that Fox and Cablevision are back at the negotiating table to try and settle their dispute over retransmission fees. [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 3:31 pm
When New York giant law firms Skadden and Wachtell Lipton go up against each other, it's always fun. [read post]
16 May 2018, 2:18 pm
United States v. [read post]
16 May 2018, 2:18 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 11:34 am
In Proceeding Under Article 6 of the Family Court Act D.D. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 4:00 am
The Second Department's decision accepted MHS's argument without elaboration and vacated the order dismissing the petition, writing as follows: A claim for dissolution of a foreign limited liability company is one over which the New York courts lack subject matter jurisdiction (see Rimawi v Atkins, 42 AD3d 799; Matter of Porciello v Sound Moves, 253 AD2d 467; Matter of Warde-McCann v Commex, Ltd., 135 AD2d 541). [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 4:38 pm
” As to the former, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to allege what overt acts were taken in Maryland by Ebaugh and Infrastructure Armour LLC with Freyssinet, given that the bridge project at issue here occurred in New York for a New York bridge, or would have occurred where Freyssinet USA had incorporated and located its principal place of business in Virginia. [read post]
