Search for: "Matter of State of New York v Pagan" Results 1 - 10 of 10
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Oct 2014, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals-- the state's highest court-- heard oral arguments in Matter of Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater, Inc. v McCoy. [read post]
4 May 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
The individual, employed by the New York City Housing Authority, had violated the Authority's  written policy prohibiting its staff members running for political office in a partisan election.Noting that “It is well settled that "[v]iolation of an employer's reasonable policies may constitute disqualifying misconduct," the Appellate Division said that the Authority’s guidelines were established “to assure compliance with the Hatch… [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 4:50 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Supreme Court, New York Count seems to us to be compelling evidence. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 3:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Thus, it is evident from the record that counsel was trying to avoid the "overbooking of cases" (Pichardo-Garcia v Josephine's Spa Corp., 91 AD3d 413, 414 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Perez v New York City Hous. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 4:05 am by Edith Roberts
Additional reactions to the oral argument come from Omar Gonzales-Pagan and Greg Nevins at Lambda Legal and Lisa Keen at Keen News Service. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 11:06 pm
For the reasons stated below, we reverse. 07a0245p.06 2007/06/26 USA v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 6:00 am by Brian Gallini
Last week’s post told the story of two New York rappers whose separate traffic stops demonstrate how officers rely on the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 5:05 am by Stephanie R. Thomas, Ph.D.
John Fullerton III posted “New York’s At-Will Employment Rule Applies to Compliance Officer Allegedly Fired for Objecting to Misconduct”, a piece written by William Milani and Anna Kolontyrsky about Sullivan v. [read post]