Search for: "MATTER OF APPELL v. Appell" Results 121 - 140 of 25,338
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
From our office in Guelph, we provide each one of our clients with comprehensive legal advice and skilled representation in all facets of employment law matters. [read post]
21 May 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
From our office in Guelph, we provide each one of our clients with comprehensive legal advice and skilled representation in all facets of employment law matters. [read post]
20 May 2024, 4:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Dabiri v Porter 2024 NY Slip Op 02686 Decided on May 15, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department is a case that neither defendant took particularly seriously, as each appeared pro-se (probably meaning that they choose not to involve their insurers.) [read post]
19 May 2024, 4:01 am by Administrator
The appellants get their costs throughout. [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2023 Argued: March 19, 2024 Decided: May 10, 2024 No. 23-1217 JASON DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellantv. [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2023 Argued: March 19, 2024 Decided: May 10, 2024 No. 23-1217 JASON DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellantv. [read post]
15 May 2024, 10:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]), the custodian engineer's generalized testimony that she would regularly test the door and determine that it was functioning safely and properly, by itself and without any expert analysis, failed to establish, prima facie, defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lugo v Belmont Blvd. [read post]
15 May 2024, 10:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]), the custodian engineer's generalized testimony that she would regularly test the door and determine that it was functioning safely and properly, by itself and without any expert analysis, failed to establish, prima facie, defendant's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Lugo v Belmont Blvd. [read post]