Search for: "Larocca v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Nov 2014, 5:47 am
LaRocca’s suit for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 4:25 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417, 419 (1989); Credit Alliance Corp. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 4:08 am
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-2526.pdf The issue of compelling a public officer or employee to testify or risk termination was considered by the Court of Appeals in Matt v LaRocca, 71 NY2d. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
*The question of compelling a public officer or employee to testify or risk termination was considered by the Court of Appeals in Matt v LaRocca, 71 NY2d 154, cert denied 486 US 1007. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In fact, the contract between Montag Architects and the nonparty developers specifically excludes the creation of a contractual relationship with third parties (see Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. v Samson Constr. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 5:55 am
Republic Services, Inc., et al., CV04-1352-DAE (LRL) consolidated with Robert LaRocca and William Lacy v. [read post]
20 May 2009, 1:16 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCivil Practice CPLR §215(8)(a) Tolling Analyzed in Rejection Of Claim Emotional Distress Charge Time Barred LaRocca v. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 3:08 am
However, the decision noted that New York courts have found that the disposition of misconduct charges does not constitute part of an employee’s “employment history” as that phrase is used in FOIL, citing LaRocca v. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Courts in New York State have consistently recognized the importance of using progressive discipline.Rulings by the New York State Supreme Court, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, suggest an employer’s in assigning severe penalties for certain “first offenses” may not survive judicial review. [read post]