Search for: "MURPHY v. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION" Results 1 - 20 of 31
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2011, 4:02 am
Substantial evidence that the educator would be reemployed during the succeeding school year defeats teacher’s claim for unemployment insurance between school years Matter of Murphy v Commissioner of Labor, 2011 NY Slip Op 05396, Appellate Division, Third Department A professional employed by an educational institution is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a… [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:27 am
” However, he noted, courts have recognized an exception to this general proposition “where a specific statutory provision authorizes a long-term contractual arrangement,” citing Murphy v Erie County, 28 NY2d 80.Holding that Sections 2507(1) and 2507(3) constituted such statutory provisions, the Commissioner ruled that each time a school board enters into a multi-year “it necessarily binds successor boards. [read post]
26 Aug 2018, 12:38 pm by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
“The Commissioner shall take all necessary and appropriate actions within the Commissioner’s authority to protect black bears on lands controlled by the State of New Jersey, including deciding whether to close said lands to the hunting of black bears pursuant to the Commissioner’s authority at N.J.S.A. 13:1B-5 et seq., as clarified and confirmed in Safari Club International v. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 8:30 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Noting that the Commissioner of Education, in his ruling in an appeal** filed with Commissioner by DeOliveira, determined that Goodwin and Murphy should have been included in the elementary education tenure area for the purpose of layoffs, the Appellate Division said that “there is no evidence that the decision not to do so was motivated by animus toward petitioner or favoritism toward Goodwin and Murphy. [read post]
30 May 2011, 12:23 pm by S2KM Limited
In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee Update included a summary of a 2011 tax case, Espinoza v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 7:55 pm
"In Bazemore v Koehle, 169 A.D.2d 574, the Appellate Division decided that inasmuch as a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing of statement of the reasons for the termination so long as the discharge is made in good faith and without any constitutionally or statutorily impermissible motive, no defamatory impression was created and the discharged provisional employee is not entitled to a name clearing hearing.On the issue of name-clearing hearings, the… [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 6:49 am by hannahlynes
In the courts Dallas v UK The applicant in this case had been found guilty of contempt of court for conducting Internet research while serving on a jury. [read post]