THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS. In the Matter of : DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, : Index No. Petitioner, : 151/94
|
|
- Derek McDaniel
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THE CITY OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS X In the Matter of : DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, : Index No. Petitioner, : 151/94 - against - : MEMORANDUM DECISION VINCENT REBECCA, : Respondent. : X P R E S E N T: RAY KRAMER Administrative Law Judge T O : CATHERINE M. ABATE Commissioner Department of Correction A P P E A R A N C E S: ORBEIN de ARMAS, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner Department of Correction 60 Hudson Street, 7 th Floor New York, New York TELLERMAN, PATICOFF AND GREENBERG Attorneys for Respondent 233 Broadway, 18 th Floor New York, New York BY: FLORENCE FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
2 - 2 - This is an employee disability proceeding referred by the petitioner, the Department of Correction, pursuant to section 71 of the New York State Civil Service Law. Petitioner alleges that respondent, a correction officer, is medically unfit to perform the duties of a correction officer, and seeks to place him on an unpaid leave of absence as per section 71 (ALJ Exs. 2A and 2B). A hearing on the issue of respondent's fitness was scheduled to be conducted before me on October 7, On that date, the parties appeared, but, at the outset of the proceedings, respondent's counsel sought leave to withdraw, on the grounds that respondent had discharged her the previous afternoon and had retained new counsel who was unable to be present. Respondent's counsel joined respondent in seeking an adjournment of the case to allow new counsel to appear. Petitioner's counsel opposed both applications as untimely, and noted his readiness to proceed. For the reasons specified below, I denied both applications. Furthermore, upon respondent's assertion that he was not currently fit to perform the duties of a correction officer, I ruled that a hearing in this matter would be unnecessary, and closed the record without testimony or further proceedings. A brief review of the circumstances leading up to these rulings is appropriate. Respondent, a correction officer, has not worked full duty since April 22, 1989, when "during exercise session, he tripped over another officer in front of him resulting to [sic] injury to his (L) ankle" (ALJ Ex. 2A). Since that time, respondent has been on either sick leave or medically monitored (light) duty with full pay. By letter dated May 1, 1992, petitioner notified respondent of its intention to place respondent on an unpaid leave of absence, as of June 1, 1992, pursuant to section 71 of the Civil Service Law, unless he objected. and requested a hearing to contest petitioner s assessment of his medical fitness (ALJ Ex. 2A). At some point shortly after notification went out, respondent retained
3 - 3 - the services of union counsel, Tellerman, Paticoff & Greenberg, to represent him in these proceeding 1 Through counsel, respondent objected to the proposed leave and requested a hearing as to the issue of his medical fitness. The case was not referred to OATH until July 15, 1993, when it was calendared for a pretrial conference on August 12, 1993 (ALJ Ex. 3). On August 12, the pretrial conference was adjourned to September 10, on application of respondent's counsel due to counsel s illness. In the interim, a trial date in this matter was set for October 7, and a notice of hearing was sent to respondent advising him of such (ALJ Ex. 4). On September 10, the parties appeared at a settlement conference conducted by Administrative Law Judge Fraser, who was assigned to handle all pretrial matters in this case. A settlement was not reached at the conference. Shortly thereafter, on September 16, 1993, petitioner made an application to Judge Fraser to amend the petition to allege that respondent was unfit for duty due to knee and back injuries suffered in April 1992, in addition to the April 1989 ankle injury already referred to in the petition. Judge Fraser granted the application over the objection of respondent and, at the same time, denied respondent's request for an adjournment of the trial to give him more time to prepare (see ALJ Ex. 2B, Mem. Decision (Sept. 21, 1993)). Thereafter, on September 24, 1993, Judge Fraser, sua sponte, issued an Order, pursuant to OATH Rules of Practice, 48 RCNY 1-24 (Nov. 30, 1992), directing respondent to file an answer in this case (see ALJ Ex. 5). The answer was to specifically address the question of whether respondent contended, as of the date of the answer, that he was medically fit to perform the duties 1 While respondent s counsel, Ms. Friedman, could not recall the exact date her firm was retained, petitioner's counsel represented that he had in his possession correspondence from the Tellerman firm, on behalf of respondent, dating back to May 14, 1992.
4 - 4 - of a correction officer. The answer was to be filed no later than October 5, 1993, two days prior to the hearing. On October 5, counsel for respondent, via a conference call, sought and received a one-day extension of time, until October 6, in which to file the answer. The basis for the extension was the fact that serious settlement negotiations were underway which might make further proceedings unnecessary. No settlement was reached and respondent did not file an answer. Instead, the parties appeared for the scheduled trial on October 7, and respondent made the above-noted applications for substitution of counsel and an adjournment. In the circumstances, it was proper to deny respondent's applications. Under OATH Rules of Practice, an application for an adjournment is addressed to the sound discretion of the presiding judge, and is to be granted only for good cause. 48 RCNY 1-32 (b) (Nov. 30, 1992). Factors which the judge may consider in deciding whether to adjourn a matter include the timeliness of the request, the purpose for the adjournment, the inconvenience and burden of delay to others, and the need for the effective administration of justice. U.S. v. Calabro, 467 F.2d 973 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 410 U.S. 926, 93 S.Ct (1973). In making the request, the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the adjournment has been necessitated by forces beyond his control and is not simply a dilatory tactic. See Department of Correction v. Rice, OATH Index No. 194/90, Mem. Dec. at 6 (Feb. 8, 1990), aff d., A.D.2d., 581 N.Y.S.2d 311 (1st Dep't 1992); cf. People v. Arroyave, 49 N Y 2d 264, 425 N.Y.S.2d 282 (1980). In this instance, respondent was unable to demonstrate the requisite good cause for an adjournment. Respondent's application, coming as it did at the outset of the trial of a matter that had been pending on the OATH calendar almost three months (since July 1993), was clearly not timely. Delay in seeking an adjournment shall militate against grant of the request. 48 RCNY 1-32 (b) (Nov. 30, 1992); Department of Housing Preservation and Development v. Natal, OATH Index
5 - 5 - No.1185/90 (Mar. 22, 1991). An adjournment of this matter would have also inconvenienced petitioner, who was prepared to proceed, and its primary witness, a physician, who was produced to give testimony, and would run counter to the goal of efficient and expedient adjudication of such administrative proceedings in the public, as well as the parties interest. Moreover, respondent s sole expressed purpose for the requested delay in this case was to allow him to substitute new counsel, which he claimed to have retained. Yet, neither he nor Ms. Friedman could offer any persuasive reason for this last minute attempted switch. Respondent has been on notice since May 1992 of petitioner s intention to place him on an unpaid leave of absence, during which time, the Tellerman firm represented him in all matters concerning this litigation. That representation included appearing for respondent at a recent settlement conference at OATH, conducting ongoing related negotiations, complying with pretrial instructions from Judge Fraser, and opposing a recent application to amend the petition. At no time during this lengthy period of representation, nor even at the time he made these applications, did respondent ever indicate a dissatisfaction with his present counsel. Nor did respondent or Ms. Friedman maintain that the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated such that respondent had failed to cooperate in the conduct of and preparation for his defense. Ms. Friedman specifically disavowed any mandatory basis under the Code of Professional Responsibility (e.g., a conflict of interest) for her withdrawal from the case. In fact, but for respondent s expressed last minute change of heart, Ms. Friedman was ready, willing and able to represent him. Ms. Friedman s sole basis for seeking leave to withdraw from the case was respondent's notification to her, on the afternoon before trial, that he wanted someone else to represent him. That is clearly an insufficient basis for relieving counsel at this juncture or delaying this proceeding any further. As for his claimed retention of new counsel, respondent could only state that he talked to Bonita Zelman, Esq. on the afternoon prior to this scheduled proceeding, October 6, and that she agreed to represent him. Ms. Zelman did not appear in this proceeding and respondent asserted that
6 - 6 - she was involved in another matter in Supreme Court and could not be present. No money was paid for her service and no retainer agreement had been signed. Ms. Zelman made no effort to arrange a conference call or in some other manner signal her interest in interceding, such as by contacting the Tellerman firm to request discovery materials or determining the status of the case. Moreover, Ms. Zelman did not file the proper application with this tribunal to substitute as counsel (see 48 RCNY 1-12) (Nov. 30, 1992)), nor file a notice of appearance (see 48 RCRY 1-11 (Nov. 30, 1992)). In the circumstances, I could only infer that Ms. Zelman, an experienced advocate who has appeared before this tribunal in the past, failed to so act because she did not believe an attorneyclient relationship had been properly established as of that point. Considering all of the above, along with respondent's failure to file an answer in this case as directed by Judge Fraser, it seemed clear that respondent's eve of trial attempt to change counsel and to adjourn his hearing, was little more than a dilatory tactic lacking a good faith basis. Obviously, that is not a proper ground upon which to seek an adjournment. See Nunley v. Guido, 62 A.D.2d 1000, 403 N.Y.S.2d 301 (2d Dep't 1978), cert. den., 439 U.S. 866, 99 S.Ct. 191 (1978) (right to counsel may not be invoked merely to delay an administrative proceeding); see also Romeo v. Union Free School District No. 3, 82 Misc.2d 336,, 368 N.Y.S.2d 726, 730 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1975). Nor was there any merit to respondent's assertion that the denial of his applications unfairly denied him the right to counsel of his own choosing. Respondent, in fact, had counsel of his own choosing for a year and a half, and could not give a viable reason for wanting to discharge them. Furthermore, while respondent clearly had a statutory and constitutional right to counsel at a hearing under section 71, he did not have an unqualified right to counsel of his choice. See U.S. ex. rel. Carey v. Rundle, 409 F.2d 1210, 1215 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. den., 397 U.S. 946, 90 S.Ct. 964 (1970); Walters v. U.S., 404 F.Supp. 996, 998 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); see also Department of
7 - 7 - Correction v. Rodriguez, OATH Index No. 761/91 (June 28, 1991); Department of Correction v. Boddie, OATH Index No. 149/88 (Oct. 27, 1988). Ultimately, however, these issues were somewhat academic in light of respondent's position with respect to the merits of the disability proceeding. Respondent's right to demand a hearing under section 71 existed only to the extent that there was a relevant contested issue to be litigated. The only issue to be determined in a section 71 (or section 72) proceeding is whether the employee, at the time of the hearing, is currently fit to perform the duties of his position. In this case, respondent was directed to file an answer to the petition specifically addressing that question, but failed to do so without good cause. At trial, upon inquiry by this tribunal, respondent initially refused to take any position on his fitness to return to work. When the applications to change counsel and for an adjournment were denied, respondent finally acknowledged his inability to resume full duty in the following exchange: (Tr ). THE COURT: Do you have an answer to file? That is the only question at this point, no recesses, no delays, no further discussion. MR. REBECCA: Your Honor, being that I am not represented by counsel - - 'THE COURT: You are represented by counsel - - MR. REBECCA: Not the counsel that I wanted to be heard by, I have no other choice but I d like it to be clear for the record that I am not being represented by any counsel, so I don't really know what to say to this court. The only reason, you want an answer whether I am fit to return back to work at this point in time? Am I correct? THE COURT: Yes. That's what I want to know. Your position. Are you ready to return to work? MR. REBECCA: Due to the nature of my injuries? No. Your Honor. By his failure to comply with Judge Fraser's direction that he file a pretrial answer as to his fitness, and, more significantly, by his affirmative answer at these proceedings that he was not fit
8 - 8 - to perform the duties of a correction officer due to a disability, respondent made clear that there was no difference between his position and petitioner's on the only relevant issue to be litigated. In the absence of any dispute over the operative facts underlying petitioner's intention to place respondent on a leave of absence, a hearing was unnecessary. See Economics v. Village of Pelham, 50 N.Y.2d 120, 428 N.Y.S.2d 213 (1980); Dolan v. Whalen, 49 N.Y.2d 991, 429 N.Y.S.2d 169 (1980); Duncan v. New York State Developmental Center, 63 N.Y.2d 128, 481 N.Y.S.2d 22 (1984); Department of Correction v. Anglero, OATH Index No. 531/90 (Mar. 23, 1990); see also Department of Correction v. Rodriguez, OATH, Index No. 183/93, report and recommendation at 5, fn. 4, (Sept. 17, 1992). Petitioner may therefore immediately place respondent on a leave of absence pursuant, to section 71 of the Civil Service Law. DATED: October 21, 1993 Ray Kramer Administrative Law Judge
Police Dep't v. Davis OATH Index No. 1297/15, mem. dec. (Dec. 26, 2014)
Police Dep't v. Davis OATH Index No. 1297/15, mem. dec. (Dec. 26, 2014) Respondent s motion to dismiss petition granted where petitioner failed to serve respondent with notice of right to request retention
More informationPolice Dep t v. Neiss OATH Index No. 2094/09, mem. dec. (Feb. 9, 2009)
Police Dep t v. Neiss OATH Index No. 2094/09, mem. dec. (Feb. 9, 2009) In vehicle forfeiture proceeding, ALJ found that claimant failed to provide proof she was the registered or titled owner under Krimstock.
More informationPrismatic Development Corp. v. Dep t of Sanitation OATH Index No. 1239/16, mem. dec. (June 30, 2016)
Prismatic Development Corp. v. Dep t of Sanitation OATH Index No. 1239/16, mem. dec. (June 30, 2016) General contractor sought extra compensation for costs to install devices that it furnished under the
More informationHealth and Hospitals Corp. (Harlem Hospital Center) v. Norwood OATH Index No. 143/05, mem. dec. (June 20, 2005)
Health and Hospitals Corp. (Harlem Hospital Center) v. Norwood OATH Index No. 143/05, mem. dec. (June 20, 2005) Petitioner's post-report and recommendation motion to reopen the record to submit new evidence
More informationNEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
Comm n on Human Rights ex rel. Hidalgo v. Ditmas Park Rehabilitation and Care Center, LLC OATH Index Nos. 2415/13, 2416/13, & 2417/13, mem. dec. (Sept. 25, 2013) Respondents who failed to timely submit
More informationHuman Resources Admin. v. Cornelius OATH Index No. 2041/13 (July 10, 2013)
Human Resources Admin. v. Cornelius OATH Index No. 2041/13 (July 10, 2013) Undisputed evidence established that respondent was continuously absent without leave (AWOL) for more than a year, from January
More informationPavarini McGovern, LLC v. Dep t of Parks & Recreation OATH Index No. 1565/14, mem. dec. (June 20, 2014)
Pavarini McGovern, LLC v. Dep t of Parks & Recreation OATH Index No. 1565/14, mem. dec. (June 20, 2014) CDRB determined that contractor waived its claim for interpretation of contract documents. Appeal
More informationPolice Dep t v. Vertus OATH Index No. 912/09, mem. dec. (Sept. 17, 2008)
Police Dep t v. Vertus OATH Index No. 912/09, mem. dec. (Sept. 17, 2008) Petitioner is entitled to retain vehicle as the instrumentality of a crime pending outcome of a civil forfeiture action. NEW YORK
More informationCDRB determined that contractor waived its claim regarding its contractual responsibility for wiring installation. Appeal denied.
Summit Construction Services Group, Inc. v. Dep t of Design & Construction OATH Index No. 456/15, mem. dec. (Jan. 26, 2015), aff d, Index No. 155253/2015 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Aug. 20, 2015), appended CDRB
More informationPolice Dep t v. Weaver OATH Index No. 2419/09, mem. dec. (Mar. 10, 2009)
Police Dep t v. Weaver OATH Index No. 2419/09, mem. dec. (Mar. 10, 2009) Department is entitled to retain vehicle as the instrumentality of a crime pending a civil forfeiture action. NEW YORK CITY OFFICE
More informationPolice Dep t v. Nightstar OATH Index No. 3190/09, mem. dec. (June 19, 2009)
Police Dep t v. Nightstar OATH Index No. 3190/09, mem. dec. (June 19, 2009) In vehicle forfeiture proceeding, ALJ found that petitioner proved that owner was not innocent and that the other Krimstock elements
More informationBusiness Integrity Comm n v. Freire OATH Index No. 1600/13 (Apr. 10, 2013) Violation No. TWC-9511
Business Integrity Comm n v. Freire OATH Index No. 1600/13 (Apr. 10, 2013) Violation No. TWC-9511 At a default hearing, evidence failed to establish that respondent was a business operating for the purpose
More informationPetition seeking compensation for alleged unpaid work denied. Claim dismissed as untimely. NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
Start Elevator, Inc. v. Dep t. of Correction OATH Index No. 1160/11, mem. dec. (Feb. 28, 2011), aff d, Index No. 104620/11 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Jan. 9, 2012), appended, aff d, 104 A.D.3d 488 (1 st Dep t
More informationSkyline Credit Ride, Inc. v. Board of Elections OATH Index No. 878/12, mem. dec. (Feb. 28, 2012)
Skyline Credit Ride, Inc. v. Board of Elections OATH Index No. 878/12, mem. dec. (Feb. 28, 2012) Petition dismissed as untimely. The petitioner was late in submitting its Notice of Claim to the Comptroller.
More informationCase 1:10-cv MEA Document 285 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:10-cv-02333-MEA Document 285 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE LEE ENTERPRISES,
More informationDep't of Buildings v. 67 Greenwich Street, New York County OATH Index No. 1666/09 (Apr. 10, 2009)
Dep't of Buildings v. 67 Greenwich Street, New York County OATH Index No. 1666/09 (Apr. 10, 2009) Undisputed evidence at zoning violation proceeding established that property was being used for impermissible
More informationRhodes v. Dep t of Correction OATH Index No. 227/05 (July 14, 2005)
Rhodes v. Dep t of Correction OATH Index No. 227/05 (July 14, 2005) Petitioner, a former probationary correction officer, had been terminated in connection with a use of force incident. Petitioner sought
More informationDell-Tech Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep t of Parks & Recreation OATH Index No. 410/16, mem. dec. (Jan. 21, 2016)
Dell-Tech Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep t of Parks & Recreation OATH Index No. 410/16, mem. dec. (Jan. 21, 2016) Contractor s petition for additional payment dismissed because it was untimely and waived. NEW
More informationPerfetto Enterprises v. Dep t of Parks & Recreation OATH Index No. 1646/15, mem. dec. (June 11, 2015)
Perfetto Enterprises v. Dep t of Parks & Recreation OATH Index No. 1646/15, mem. dec. (June 11, 2015) Petition seeking additional payment for asphalt work denied because claim was untimely, waived, and
More informationFire Dep't v. Domini OATH Index No. 2047/11, mem. dec. (July 28, 2011)
Fire Dep't v. Domini OATH Index No. 2047/11, mem. dec. (July 28, 2011) Respondent s motion to dismiss, on the basis of defective pleadings or until a related matter is determined in federal district court,
More informationComm n on Human Rights v. Aksoy OATH Index No. 1617/15 (Aug. 24, 2015), rejected, Comm n Dec. & Order (June 21, 2017), appended
Comm n on Human Rights v. Aksoy OATH Index No. 1617/15 (Aug. 24, 2015), rejected, Comm n Dec. & Order (June 21, 2017), appended Evidence established that respondent violated New York City s Human Rights
More informationFire Dep t v. Buttaro OATH Index No. 2430/14, mem. dec. (July 17, 2014)
Fire Dep t v. Buttaro OATH Index No. 2430/14, mem. dec. (July 17, 2014) Respondent s motion to dismiss is denied in part and denied in part with leave to renew. Respondent s motions to preclude interview
More informationPolice Dep t v. Jaber OATH Index No. 2415/09, mem. dec. (Mar. 10, 2009)
Police Dep t v. Jaber OATH Index No. 2415/09, mem. dec. (Mar. 10, 2009) Vehicle was seized as the instrumentality of a crime in connection with driver's arrest for selling counterfeit merchandise. Petitioner
More informationDep t of Correction v. LaSonde OATH Index No. 2526/11 (Aug. 18, 2011)
Dep t of Correction v. LaSonde OATH Index No. 2526/11 (Aug. 18, 2011) Correction officer refused to answer questions in MEO-16 interview. Termination from employment recommended. NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
More information-- Charles E. Sullivan, Jr., Esq., for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION In the Matter of the Alleged Violations of Article 27 and 71 of the Environmental Conservation Law ( ECL ) and Part 360 of Title 6 of the Official
More informationComm n on Human Rights ex rel. Thomas v. Mutual Apartments Inc. OATH Index No. 2399/14, mem. dec. (Sept. 2, 2014)
Comm n on Human Rights ex rel. Thomas v. Mutual Apartments Inc. OATH Index No. 2399/14, mem. dec. (Sept. 2, 2014) Petitioner s motion to compel discovery is denied as it requested information about accommodation
More informationChapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.
Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are governmental bodies other than the courts or the legislatures
More informationFire Dep t v. Harper OATH Index No. 503/14, mem. dec. (Jan. 21, 2014)
Fire Dep t v. Harper OATH Index No. 503/14, mem. dec. (Jan. 21, 2014) Employee s application for stay based on pendency of state proceeding is denied. Application for discovery and to compel petitioner
More informationChapter 5 VENUE, FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND REMOVAL
0001 VERSACOMP (4.2 ) COMPOSE2 (4.43) 10/21/05 (14:59) J:\VRS\DAT\01282\5.GML --- AG_NY.sty --CTP READY-- v2.8 10/30 --- POST 1 Chapter 5 VENUE, FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND REMOVAL Synopsis PART A: PROCEDURAL
More informationMEMORANDUM AND ORDER 09-CV-1422 (RRM)(VVP) - against - Plaintiffs Thomas P. Kenny ( Kenny ) and Patricia D. Kenny bring this action for
Kenny et al v. The City of New York et al Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------X THOMAS P. KENNY and PATRICIA D.
More informationTaxi & Limousine Comm n v. Khouma OATH Index No. 2550/15 (July 2, 2015), adopted, Dep. Comm r Dec. (July 23, 2015), appended
Taxi & Limousine Comm n v. Khouma OATH Index No. 2550/15 (July 2, 2015), adopted, Dep. Comm r Dec. (July 23, 2015), appended At summary suspension hearing, petitioner established that respondent taxicab
More informationOffice of the City Clerk v. Metropolitan New York Coordinating Council on Jewish Poverty OATH Index No. 1940/12, mem. dec. (Aug.
Office of the City Clerk v. Metropolitan New York Coordinating Council on Jewish Poverty OATH Index No. 1940/12, mem. dec. (Aug. 30, 2012) Respondent s motion to dismiss for untimeliness denied as the
More informationCommissioner determined licensee s conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant license revocation and he imposed that penalty.
Dep't of Buildings v. Inglese OATH Index No. 929/10 (Feb. 4, 2010), modified on penalty, Comm r Dec. (Apr. 23, 2010), appended, remanded sub nom Inglese v. LiMandri, 2010 NY Slip Op 32967U; 2010 N.Y. Misc.
More informationCase 1:08-cr EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cr-00231-EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 08-231 (EGS) THEODORE
More informationSang Park v. Attorney General United States
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-21-2014 Sang Park v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-1545
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
For Publication IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ALLENTON BROWNE, Appellant/Defendant, v. LAURA L.Y. GORE, Appellee/Plaintiff. Re: Super. Ct. Civ. No. 155/2010 (STX On Appeal from the Superior
More informationPolice Dep't v. McBrien OATH Index No. 1058/09, mem. dec. (Oct. 9, 2008)
Police Dep't v. McBrien OATH Index No. 1058/09, mem. dec. (Oct. 9, 2008) Vehicle was seized as the instrumentality of a crime in connection with respondent's arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.
More informationTERMINATING REPRESENTATION: ETHICAL AND LEGAL DUTIES OF CJA COUNSEL. March 2, 2011 CLE. Sponsored by Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc.
TERMINATING REPRESENTATION: ETHICAL AND LEGAL DUTIES OF CJA COUNSEL March 2, 2011 CLE Sponsored by Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc. Presented and Moderated by Robert T. Ruth I. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
More informationNEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS CONTRACT DISPUTE RESOLUTION BOARD
Kreisler Borg Florman General Construction Co. on behalf of Minelli Construction Co., Inc. v. Dep t of Design & Construction OATH Index Nos. 1079/06, 1100/06, mem. dec. (June 1, 2006) Agency moved to dismiss
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION. v. CASE NO. 1:07-cv SPM-GRJ ORDER
-GRJ BUTLER v. POTTER Doc. 79 Page 1 of 7 GERALD E. BUTLER, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION v. CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00022-SPM-GRJ JOHN
More informationLawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-2-2010 Lawrence Walker v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-1446 Follow
More information7 ( tl/il )( ~ c=i..
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------)( BROADWAY TRIANGLE COIVIMUNITY COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs-
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No
Loiselle v. Social Security, Commissioner of Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JULIE LOISELLE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 08-12513 v. HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of JIANA BOONE,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X In the Matter of the Application of JIANA BOONE, Index No. Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 against THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
More informationHAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47
HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47 LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Subchapter 1
More informationDep t of Buildings v. 74 Targee Street, Staten Island OATH Index No. 1302/09 (May 27, 2009)
Dep t of Buildings v. 74 Targee Street, Staten Island OATH Index No. 1302/09 (May 27, 2009) Petitioner established that the premises is being used for an impermissible commercial use. Respondents failed
More informationNEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
Comm n on Human Rights v. Tantillo OATH Index Nos. 105/11, 106/11 & 107/11 (Feb. 24, 2011), modified on penalty, Comm n Dec. & Order (May 23, 2011), appended In default proceeding, petitioner established
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD IRIZARRY, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 06-7517 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD IRIZARRY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU -PART 47
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU -PART 47 INTEGRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT COMBINED PART RULES & PROCEDURES Acting Supreme Court Justice: HON. HELENE F.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:13-cv-02637-SRN-BRT Document 162 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Solutran, Inc. Case No. 13-cv-2637 (SRN/BRT) Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bancorp and Elavon,
More informationRules of the Legal Fee Arbitration Board of the Massachusetts Bar Association As Amended and Effective September 1, 2012
Rules of the Legal Fee Arbitration Board of the Massachusetts Bar Association As Amended and Effective September 1, 2012 20 West Street Boston, MA 02111-1218 TELEPHONE (617) 338-0500 FAX (617) 338-0550
More informationCase 2:16-cv LDW-ARL Document 12 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 130
Case 2:16-cv-01414-LDW-ARL Document 12 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 130 Christine A. Rodriguez BALESTRIERE FARIELLO 225 Broadway, 29th Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 374-5400
More informationPlaintiffs, who represent a class of African American and Latino teachers in the New
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------X GULINO, ET AL., -against- Plaintiffs, 96-CV-8414 (KMW) OPINION & ORDER THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
More informationMatter of Aoki 2016 NY Slip Op 31898(U) October 13, 2016 Surrogate's Court, New York County Docket Number: /E Judge: Rita M.
Matter of Aoki 2016 NY Slip Op 31898(U) October 13, 2016 Surrogate's Court, New York County Docket Number: 2008-2604/E Judge: Rita M. Mella Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op
More informationCase 3:11-cv DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00332-DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 97-CV Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Evelyn E. Queen, Trial Judge)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationPRACTICE GUIDE JEFFREY P. NORMAN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
PRACTICE GUIDE JEFFREY P. NORMAN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE The following is intended to serve as an informational guide to common issues encountered in the Shreveport and Monroe Bankruptcy Courts.
More informationFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ANNEX D. Classified Information Procedures Act: Statute, Procedures, and Comparison with M.R.E. 505
ANNEX D Classified Information Procedures Act: Statute, Procedures, and Comparison with M.R.E. 505 Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 United States Code Appendix 1 1. Definitions (a) "Classified
More informationAFLRED B. WHITE, Chairman, RODERICK W. CIFERRI, III and AMEDEO LALLI, Board of Assessors of the Town of Washington, New York, Motion Date: 3/16/07
To commence the 30 day statutory time period for appeals as of right (CPLR 5513[a]), you are advised to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
More informationCase 1:05-cv RMC Document 35 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cv-02345-RMC Document 35 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEMBEC INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Civil Action No. 05-2345 (RMC UNITED STATES
More informationHalvatzis v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr NY Slip Op 30511(U) March 28, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 7605/2014 Judge: Denis J.
Halvatzis v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr. 2016 NY Slip Op 30511(U) March 28, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 7605/2014 Judge: Denis J. Butler Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationMatter of DeSantis v Pfau 2011 NY Slip Op 31604(U) June 14, 2011 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Republished from New
Matter of DeSantis v Pfau 2011 NY Slip Op 31604(U) June 14, 2011 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 106649/11 Judge: Barbara Jaffe Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationDep t of Buildings v. Manchester OATH Index No. 467/15 (Jan. 28, 2015)
Dep t of Buildings v. Manchester OATH Index No. 467/15 (Jan. 28, 2015) Hoist machine operator, whose driver s license was revoked upon his conviction for driving while intoxicated, failed to maintain a
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. MICHAEL D. STALLMAN ----~~~~==~~~~~~~ Justice PART 21 In the Matter of the Denial of the Carry Business License Application of CAVAliER
More informationSINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)
GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G.L.G., a minor, by his parents and natural guardians, ERNEST GRAVES AND CHERYL W. GRAVES, Petitioners-Appellants,
More informationWisehart v Kiesel 2005 NY Slip Op 30533(U) August 24, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /05 Judge: Sherry Klein Heitler Cases
Wisehart v Kiesel 2005 NY Slip Op 30533(U) August 24, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101619/05 Judge: Sherry Klein Heitler Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationLucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission 138 S. Ct (2018)
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) Justice KAGAN, delivered the opinion of the Court. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution lays out the permissible methods of appointing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-jvs-dfm Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 SHELBY PHILLIPS, III, et al. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff(s), UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel:05/29/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-cv-00087 (CRC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION New York
More informationRespondents. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK RECLAIM THE RECORDS and BROOKE SCHREIER GANZ, Petitioners, Index No 159537/2018 THE CITY OF NEW YORK and DEPARTMENT OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES SUMMARY FINAL ORDER
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION-HOA BRAXTON MILLER, Petitioner, v. Case
More informationLOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE FOR CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT CASES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A ALEXANDER AND IREDELL COUNTIES REVISED January 2015
LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE FOR CIVIL SUPERIOR COURT CASES JUDICIAL DISTRICT 22A ALEXANDER AND IREDELL COUNTIES REVISED January 2015 The following Local Rules of Practice for the calendaring of civil matters
More informationTHE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of KIKO, Petitioner-Appellant,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of a Proceeding under Article
More informationLiRo/HAKS, J.V. v. Dep t of Design & Construction OATH Index No. 1466/14, mem. dec. (Mar. 31, 2014)
LiRo/HAKS, J.V. v. Dep t of Design & Construction OATH Index No. 1466/14, mem. dec. (Mar. 31, 2014) Petition requesting additional compensation for electrical work dismissed as time-barred. NEW YORK CITY
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. Case No. 09-RD PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR REVIEW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kyle B. Chilton, Petitioner and Case No. 09-RD-061754 Center City Int l Trucking, Inc., Employer and International Ass n of Machinists, Union. PETITIONERS
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/02/ :08 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK DEMOND MOORE and MICHAEL KIMMELMAN, P.C. v. Plaintiffs, CIOX HEALTH LLC and NYU HOSPITALS CENTER, Defendants. Index No. 655060/2016 ASSIGNED JUDGE
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK EAST OF HUDSON RAIL FREIGHT TASK FORCE, Index No. 654271/2016 Plaintiff, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/ :32 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2016 DEFENDANT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2016 02:32 PM INDEX NO. 450175/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania Uninsured Employers : Guaranty Fund, : Petitioner : : No. 1540 C.D. 2013 v. : : Submitted: January 31, 2014 Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Dudkiewicz,
More informationAttorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial. records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense counsel which prevented their
Counsel s Obligation to Advise a Defendant on the Right to Testify By: Mark M. Baker 1 Attorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense
More informationPetitioner, DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Index No.: /16 -against- Mot. Seq. No.: 001
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------X SCANOMAT A/S, Petitioner, DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Index No.:
More informationLi Ping Xie v Jang 2012 NY Slip Op 33871(U) February 28, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008E Judge: Paul G.
Li Ping Xie v Jang 2012 NY Slip Op 33871(U) February 28, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 117222/2008E Judge: Paul G. Feinman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationPROBATE COURT OF THE TOWN OF LITTLE COMPTON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
PROBATE COURT OF THE TOWN OF LITTLE COMPTON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 33-22-29 the Probate Court of the Town of Little Compton hereby establishes and adopts the following
More informationMatter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v New York City Office of Admin. Trial and Hearings 2018 NY Slip Op 32827(U) November 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York
Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v New York City Office of Admin. Trial and Hearings 2018 NY Slip Op 32827(U) November 5, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 154956/2018 Judge: Carol R. Edmead
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------- X KATARINA SCOLA, Plaintiff, Index. No.: 654447/2013 -against- AFFIRMATION
More informationCarreras v. Dep t of Environmental Protection OATH Index No. 3032/09 (July 23, 2009)
Carreras v. Dep t of Environmental Protection OATH Index No. 3032/09 (July 23, 2009) Department s denial of variance application was not an abuse of discretion where applicant did not propose adequate
More informationTHE COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF RECORD IN COLORADO CHAPTER 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS
THE COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF RECORD IN COLORADO CHAPTER 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 86. PENDING WATER ADJUDICATIONS UNDER 1943 ACT In any water adjudication under the provisions of
More informationPART 358. Sec
CHAPTER I1 DEPARVNT REGULATIONS Sec. 358.1 358.2 358.3 358.4 358.5 358.6 358.7 358.8 358.9 358.10 358.11 358.12 PART 358 FAIR HEARINGS (Statutory authority: Social Services Law, 20,30; L. 1971, ch. 110,
More informationCLOTURE PROCEDURE 2H2
CLOTURE PROCEDURE Cloture is the means by which the Senate limits debate on a measure or matter. A cloture motion "to bring to a close the debate on any measure, motion or other matter pending before the
More informationFAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU - PART 8
FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU - PART 8 COMBINED PART RULES & PROCEDURES Family Court Judge: Court Attorney: Secretary: Part Clerk: HON. MERIK R. AARON KRISTEN REANY, ESQ. MICHELLE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN
Crespin v. Stephens Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JEREMY CRESPIN (TDCJ No. 1807429), Petitioner, V. No. 3:15-cv-818-D-BN WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 5, 2007
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 5, 2007 DANNY RAY MEEKS v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 07-79-IV
More informationVIA ECF and HAND DELIVERY
Attorneys at Law 142 West 57th Street, Suite 4A New York, New York 10019 Main No: (212) 235-0300 Direct Dial: June 20, 2016 VIA ECF and HAND DELIVERY Hon. Eileen Bransten New York State Supreme Court New
More informationSALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A. Organization 1. Election of Chair and Vice Chair: The Planning Commission, at its first regular meeting in September of each year, shall elect
More informationAstrit Zhuleku v. Atty Gen USA
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-21-2012 Astrit Zhuleku v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-1063 Follow
More informationPreparing For The Obvious At The PTAB
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB Law360, New
More informationNoble v Noble 2011 NY Slip Op 30835(U) April 7, 2011 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: Judge: Joseph C. Teresi Republished from New York
Noble v Noble 2011 NY Slip Op 30835(U) April 7, 2011 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: 571-08 Judge: Joseph C. Teresi Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search
More informationCarnegie Mellon Univ v. Schwartz
1997 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-28-1997 Carnegie Mellon Univ v. Schwartz Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 95-3440 Follow this and additional
More information