Search for: "Then v New York City Tr. Auth."
Results 121 - 140
of 168
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2011, 4:08 am
Arbitrator’s award based on a finding of “past practice” did not modify the collective bargaining agreement between the partiesMatter of Romaine v New York City Tr. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 6:19 am
New York City Tr. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 5:27 am
New York City Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 80 (2d Cir.2003) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 9:41 pm
New York City Tr. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 9:32 am
Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 11:12 am
Rodriguez v New York City Tr. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 7:30 am
Extending the probationary periodSubway-Surface Supervisors Assn. v New York City Tr. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 3:34 am
New York City Tr. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 12:39 am
New York City Tr. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 7:32 am
New York Cent. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 1:08 am
Bumpus v New York City Tr. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 3:58 am
Bumpus v New York City Tr. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 3:16 am
However, in view of this concession, our preference for resolving controversies on the merits (see Spira v New York City Tr. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 9:00 pm
New York City Tr. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 7:29 am
The final and appealable paper to this Court is the final judgment entered after the denial of the motion or an Appellate Division order resolving an appeal from that judgment (see Cuadrado v New York City Tr. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 5:25 am
New York City Tr. [read post]
19 May 2010, 3:34 am
Real Estate Corp., 60 AD3d 841, 843-844; Tenore v Tenore, 45 AD3d 571, 571-572; Smith v Moore, 31 AD3d 628, 629; Matter of Lutz v Goldstone, 31 AD3d 449, 450-451; Thorson v New York City Tr. [read post]
18 May 2010, 5:25 am
New York City Tr. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 3:31 pm
Only the union or the employer may demand that an issue be submitted to arbitrationNew York City Tr. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 3:11 am
It is for the trier of fact to make determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference is accorded to the factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see Bertelle v New York City Tr. [read post]
