Search for: "York v York" Results 1021 - 1040 of 52,882
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jun 2009, 10:01 pm
New York's Administrative Procedures Act does not require a State agency to issue a declaratory ruling when requestedMatter of Humane Society of United States, Inc. v Brennan, 2009 NY Slip Op 05062, Decided on June 18, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentThe genesis of this lawsuit was the New York State's Department of Agriculture and Markets' declining to issue a declaration that foie gras* is an adulterated food product within the meaning of… [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 9:00 am by P. Andrew Torrez
Today, we’re doing something a little different, taking our cue from a recent New York state appellate decision:  Brown & Brown, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 7:04 am
This upcoming week, the New York Court of Appeals will address the following certified question in Briggs Avenue LLC v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 1:39 am
New York State Department of Civil Service NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS Free: Narrow Ruling Upholds Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage in Two Cases NEW YORK COUNTY Labor Law Court Dismisses Worker's Negligence Claim; Denies Dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) Suit Hurley v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Matter of Bonifacio v Sewell 2024 NY Slip Op 02886 Decided on May 28, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
29 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Matter of Bonifacio v Sewell 2024 NY Slip Op 02886 Decided on May 28, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 9:16 am
We posted last year about the NY Court of Appeals excellent decision in Arons v. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 6:41 am by Evidence ProfBlogger
The Court of Appeals of New York addressed but did not resolve an interesting Best Evidence Rule issue in its recent opinion in People v. [read post]