Search for: "Miller v. Employment Division"
Results 1 - 20
of 185
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2012, 3:20 am
Employer did not breach a “contract of employment” when it restored a probationary employee to the employee's former position Miller v Theodore-Tassy, 2012 NY Slip Op 00940, Appellate Division, Second Department Margaret Theodore-Tassy’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Nancy Miller’s complaint insofar as asserted against her for alleged “tortious interference with contract“ was denied by… [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 2:34 pm
Employer did not breach a “contract of employment” when it restored a probationary employee from the employee's former position Miller v Theodore-Tassy, 2012 NY Slip Op 00940, Appellate Division, Second Department Margaret Theodore-Tassy’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Nancy Miller’s complaint insofar as asserted against her for alleged “tortious interference with contract“ was denied by Supreme… [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 9:00 pm
Miller v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 08495, Appellate Division, First Department In cases where the conduct complained encompasses a New York City Department of Education’s employee’s scope of his or her public employment, a notice of... [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 5:21 am
Nabors v Town of Somers, 2008 NY Slip Op 06972, decided on September 16, 2008, Appellate Division, Second Department Elizabeth Miller Nabors sued both. her former employer, the Town of Somers, alleging that she had been wrongfully terminated and her... [read post]
3 Oct 2008, 7:25 pm
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Bianco v. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:22 am
Employee suspended without pay in excess of the time authorized by §75 may be entitled to be paid for some or all of such suspension without payElizabeth Miller Nabors v Town of Somers, 2010 NY Slip Op 03089, Decided on April 13, 2010, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentElizabeth Miller Nabors began working part time for the Town of Somers. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:35 pm
Riley v Murray, then, sits uncomfortably with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Miller v College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926, which was handed down on the same day. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 3:16 am
Moncho v Miller 2021 NY Slip Op 06960 Decided on December 14, 2021, Appellate Division, First Department makes this point. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 4:03 am
Citing DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183 AD2d 697, the Appellate Division said that although Miller had not used the words "tortious interference with contract," a notice of claim does not have to set forth a precise legal theory of recovery. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 9:39 am
Matter of Elizabeth Miller Nabors v Town of Somers Petitioner, Elizabeth Miller Nabors, began working part time for the Town of Somers in 2003. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:26 am
However in so far as they seek to declare it “null” and of “no effect” he submits that they went too far and where they cannot go. 14:16: Lord Keen QC notes that this principle is consistent with extensive authority and which Sir James Eadie QC will address in due course in further detail. 14:14: Lord Keen QC notes that the Inner House accepted that the principle of non-justiciability exists in public law and that the question of whether something is… [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Judge Miller recommended termination of A.M. employment. [read post]
15 Feb 2019, 1:50 pm
Decision: Miller v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 7:24 am
By Ronald Miller, J.D. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 3:05 am
Here, said the Appellate Division, Miller alleged a "constitutionally impermissible reason" for his termination -- his political affiliation.The court rejected the Village's argument that because Miller was a probationary employee it had the right to terminate his employment for any reason or for no reason.* The Appellate Division said that "given the nature of [Miller's] allegations, it was incumbent upon the… [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 4:00 am
The court then explained that order to state a cause of action to recover for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiff must allege a specific business relationship with an identified third party with which the defendants interfered, citing a number of court decisions including Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Linder, 88 AD2d 50, 72, affd 59 NY2d 314). [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 4:00 am
The court then explained that order to state a cause of action to recover for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiff must allege a specific business relationship with an identified third party with which the defendants interfered, citing a number of court decisions including Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Linder, 88 AD2d 50, 72, affd 59 NY2d 314). [read post]
30 Apr 2008, 7:45 am
Apache Corporation v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 5:50 am
DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Military Law Court-Martialed Officer's Habeas Challenge Transferred to Federal Court in Maryland Miller v. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 1:14 pm
Miller, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-5004/AF (C.A.A.F. [read post]
