Search for: "Maas v. Cornell Univ."
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
Citing Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, the court explained that “[t]o accept [the excuses] would amount to second-guessing the determination that [Rabenswaay’s] repeated failure to timely complete the IEPs reflected a pedagogical deficiency that merited the U-rating. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
The nominally private charter or status of the entities in question is not determinative, however (see Smith, 92 NY2d at 713-716; Holden v Board of Trustees of Cornell Univ., 80 AD2d 378, 380-381 [3d Dept 1981]). [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 4:46 am
However, “allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration” (Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 91 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Myers v Schneiderman, 30 NY3d 1, 11). [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 4:35 am
Nor do we believe that our decision will lead to unpredictability or confusion given that it reiterates the proposition that bare legal conclusions in a pleading are not entitled to consideration when assessing a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see Myers v Schneiderman, 30 NY3d 1, 11 [2017]; Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d at 141; Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 91 [1999]; Rodriguez v… [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
The nominally private charter or status of the entities in question is not determinative, however (see Smith, 92 NY2d at 713-716; Holden v Board of Trustees of Cornell Univ., 80 AD2d 378, 380-381 [3d Dept 1981]). [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 4:30 am
At the same time, however, “allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration” (Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 91 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Myers v Schneiderman, 30 NY3d 1, 11; Sweeney v Sweeney, 71 AD3d 989, 991). [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 1:13 am
See Weiner v. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 12:26 pm
This argument is foreclosed by the mother having taken a contrary position before Supreme Court when she affirmatively opposed the father's pretrial motion for the appointment of an attorney for the child as in Mikkelson v Kessler, Maas v Cornell Univ. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 2:53 am
However, "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration" (Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, 91 [1999]). [read post]
