Search for: "MATTER OF A J S" Results 1041 - 1060 of 19,320
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Oct 2009, 7:59 am
A panel of the Appellate Term of the New York Supreme Court in New York County has unanimously reversed a decision from February 2009 by Civil Court Judge Manuel J. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 7:41 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Feb. 22, 2012 Connelly, J.), Judge Shad Connelly granted the carrier’s Motion to Sever the Plaintiffs’ UIM breach of contract claim and bad faith claim in a post-Koken matter. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 7:36 am by Michael Kraut
Let’s discuss this pivotal criminal trial and its overall effect on California’s approach to domestic violence today. [read post]
10 Jun 2023, 6:30 am
Greecher, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on Saturday, June 10, 2023 Editor's Note: Amy L. [read post]
10 Jun 2023, 6:30 am
Greecher, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, on Saturday, June 10, 2023 Editor's Note: Amy L. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"[W]here there is a conflict in the testimony and either of two inferences may be drawn, the duty of choosing between the inferences is the agency's, and the courts may not reject the agency's choice" (Matter of Fields v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 198 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept 2021]). [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"[W]here there is a conflict in the testimony and either of two inferences may be drawn, the duty of choosing between the inferences is the agency's, and the courts may not reject the agency's choice" (Matter of Fields v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 198 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept 2021]). [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 1:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
. ;2009 NY Slip Op 05737 [66 AD3d 26] ;July 7, 2009 ;Dillon, J., J. discusses what to do when the defendant can't be identified, or served within a 120 day period. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 3:02 pm by Oliver G. Randl
That reasoning does not in any way suggest that the late authorisation was due to financial difficulties rather than a lack of experience on the part of the appellant in patent matters. [read post]