Search for: "Colon v. Colon" Results 81 - 100 of 719
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Aug 2012, 3:30 am
Waiving further administrative or judicial consideration of the resulting decision as a conditions of electing a particular administrative review procedure binding Colon v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 2012 NY Slip Op 05819, Appellate Division, Second Department When the application for a performance-of-duty retirement disability pension was denied by the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System, the applicant was advised that… [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 10:11 am
Slip Opinion No.People v Bailey Ind. 8766/00 2007 NY Slip Op 06789People v Colon Ind. 4153/00 2007 NY Slip Op 06790Buder v City of New York Index 6269/06 2007 NY Slip Op 06791People v Gonzalez Ind. 2625/05 2007 NY Slip Op 06792People v Hart Ind. 893/01 2007 NY Slip Op 06793Jill S. v… [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 6:58 am
The First Department was confronted with this issue yesterday in People v Colon, 2007 NY Slip Op 09544. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 1:28 pm by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the defendant’s motion for discovery regarding the plaintiffs’ immigration status in Colon v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 7:34 am by Holger Hembach
In Colon v The Netherlands, the European Court of Human Rights has scrutinized laws authorizing the search of persons without reasonable suspicion in light of article 8 ECHR.Pursuant to Dutch law, the mayor (Burgomaster) may designate certain areas as ‘security risk area’ for a limited time. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 3:40 am by Russ Bensing
Horner took care of Colon. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 11:15 pm
Barnhizer, Reverse Colonization: Islam, Honor Cultures and the Confrontation Between Divine and Quasi-Secular Natural Law, (April 16, 2007, Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 07-142).From Bepress:Mark C. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 5:23 pm by Brian Shiffrin
In People v Colon (__NY3d__, 2009 NY Slip Op 08477 [11/19/09])the Court of Appeals granted co-defendants' motion to vacate their murder convictions where only two witnesses had linked the defendants to the crime and the trial prosecutor had permitted one of the witnesses to falsely state the extent of the benefits he received for testifying against the defendants. [read post]