Search for: "Doe v. Coughlin"
Results 41 - 60
of 107
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm
While Public Officers Law § 89 (3) (a) requires that the records sought be "reasonably described," an agency denying a FOIL request for lack of a reasonable description "bears the burden to establish that the descriptions were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the documents sought" (Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York State Police, 207 AD3d 971, 974 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Konigsberg… [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:13 am
In Colon v. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, opining although "Public Officers Law §17(3)(a) provides that the State shall indemnify its employees for a judgment or settlement provided that the act or omission which was the subject of the judgment or settlement occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his [or her] public employment or duties," that duty does not extend to cases in which "the injury or damage resulted from intentional… [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling, opining although "Public Officers Law §17(3)(a) provides that the State shall indemnify its employees for a judgment or settlement provided that the act or omission which was the subject of the judgment or settlement occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his [or her] public employment or duties," that duty does not extend to cases in which "the injury or damage resulted from intentional… [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 4:52 am
When the request was denied, the individual sued, claiming his resignation had been obtained under duress and thus was void.The Court of Appeals ruled that where an appointing authority has the right, if not the duty, to take disciplinary action against an individual, "it was not duress to threaten to do what one had the legal right to do" [Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643]. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 6:09 am
The style of the case is, Hamilton Properties v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 3:48 am
The Court of Appeals addressed this question in Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 4:15 am
When the request was denied, the individual sued, claiming his resignation had been obtained under duress and thus was void.The Court of Appeals ruled that where an appointing authority has the right, if not the duty, to take disciplinary action against an individual, "it was not duress to threaten to do what one had the legal right to do" [Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643]. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
” NYPPL Comment: On the issue of coercion in connection with an appointing authority’s threatening disciplinary action if the employee does not resign from his or her position, the Court of Appeals has held that threatening to do what the appointing authority had a right to do -- i.e., file disciplinary charges -- did not constitute coercion so as to make the resignation involuntary [Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643]. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 4:00 am
This was demonstrated in the Appellate Division’s ruling in Taylor v Cass, 505 NYS2d 929. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 2:59 pm
Coughlin (April 24): Whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 1:15 am
v. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, NY (Paul J. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton, NY (Paul J. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 7:41 am
In Eisai Co. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 10:49 pm
S., at ___–___ (GORSUCH, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 5–8); Coughlin v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 6:37 am
” [Coughlin v. [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 6:03 pm
Coughlin. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 6:48 am
Does plaintiff have a case? [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 4:10 am
In Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, the Court of Appeals sustained the appointing authority’s refusal to allow Rychlick to withdraw his resignation that Rychlick claimed had been obtained under duress -- the threat of disciplinary action unless he resigned -- ruling that threatening to do what one had the legal right to do -- file disciplinary charges against an employee -- does not constitute unlawful duress. ** 4 NYCRR 5.3, which applies to officers and employees… [read post]
