Search for: "Yorke v. Taylor"
Results 81 - 100
of 979
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Aug 2013, 8:35 am
Bell in Taylor v State of New York (160 Misc 2d 120). [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 6:21 am
New York State Appellate Division, Second Department: McCabe v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 3:54 am
The significance of this provision is that no pre-termination hearing that may otherwise be viewed as mandated by law such as the proceeding set out in Section 75 of the Civil Service Law or a Taylor Law disciplinary grievance procedure is required to effect the termination.In Bowman, Section 30.1(e) was the basis for the court’s sustaining the termination of several New York City correction officers without a hearing. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 6:00 am
[and] provide for a hearing and an appeal" (See Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Public Empl. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 6:00 am
[and] provide for a hearing and an appeal" (See Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Public Empl. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 7:17 am
Public policy voids arbitrator’s awardCity of New York v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 8:19 am
Photo credit: Wikipedia)In X Legacy, LLC v. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 4:00 am
" The Court of Appeals then noted that it "answered that question in the affirmative five years later" in Matter of City of Watertown v State of New York Public Employment Relations Board, 95 NY2d 73 [Watertown], holding that "the procedures for contesting the City's determinations under section 207-c are a mandatory subject of bargaining. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 4:00 am
" The Court of Appeals then noted that it "answered that question in the affirmative five years later" in Matter of City of Watertown v State of New York Public Employment Relations Board, 95 NY2d 73 [Watertown], holding that "the procedures for contesting the City's determinations under section 207-c are a mandatory subject of bargaining. [read post]
5 Feb 2016, 4:00 am
Appellate Division holds Civil Service Law Article 14 trumps Second Class Cities Law Article 9 with respect to negotiating police disciplinary proceduresCity of Schenectady v New York State Pub. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
"** See Green v New YorkCityPoliceDepartment,et al., 235 AD2d 475. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 5:30 am
The decision Taylor v Cass, 122 A.D.2d 885, illustrates another the critical element for an appointing authority to consider when terminating an individual serving a disciplinary probationary period. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
"** See Green v New YorkCityPoliceDepartment,et al., 235 AD2d 475. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 7:17 pm
In New York, the Second Circuit uses the factors that were set forth in Polaroid Corp. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 3:59 am
” (Dye v New York City Tr. [read post]
5 May 2016, 6:57 am
A few months later, however, the company entered into a settlement with the New York Attorney General that included a penalty of $50,000 for its alleged failure to disclose payments to the influencers. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 2:40 am
Determining if assigned duties constitute out-of-title workCSEA v Angello, App. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 11:59 am
” Under the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Taylor v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
The employer's annual reviewing and approving requests for the assignment an agency vehicle to an employee does not create a past practiceSpence v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08594, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentCertain employees serving with Department of Transportation [DOT] were assigned state-owned vehicles for work and, in some instances, several employees seeking to use the vehicle for commuting as well as for work was authorized.Wayne Spence,… [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:00 am
The employer's annual reviewing and approving requests for the assignment an agency vehicle to an employee does not create a past practiceSpence v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08594, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentCertain employees serving with Department of Transportation [DOT] were assigned state-owned vehicles for work and, in some instances, several employees seeking to use the vehicle for commuting as well as for work was authorized.Wayne Spence,… [read post]
