15 Cited authorities

United States v. Will
449 U.S. 200 (1980) Cited 354 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule of necessity is an exception to the recusal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 455
United States v. Hatter
532 U.S. 557 (2001) Cited 124 times
Holding that where pursuant to statute taxes were withheld from judicial paychecks, a separate cause of action accrued with each individual paycheck under the continuing claim doctrine
In re Maron
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8573 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 69 times
Finding link between legislative and judicial pay increases unconstitutional under New York state constitution
DePascale v. State
211 N.J. 40 (N.J. 2012) Cited 28 times
Recognizing general principles of necessity
In Matter of New York v. Rashid
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1316 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 24 times
No. 205. Argued October 19, 2010. Decided November 23, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered December 22, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.; op 25 Misc 3d 318), which had (1) granted respondent's motion to dismiss a petition seeking sex offender civil management of respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law
Larabee v. Governor
65 A.D.3d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 18 times
In Larabee, the order of Appellate Division should be modified, and in Chief Judge, the judgment of Supreme Court and the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by granting judgment declaring that under the circumstances of these cases, as a matter of law, the State defendants' failure to consider judicial compensation on the merits violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and by allowing for the remedy discussed in this opinion, and, as modified, affirmed.
McBryde v. U.S.
299 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Cited 19 times
Holding that payment under judicial litigation expenses statute is mandatory, rather than discretionary, "when the statutory conditions are met, and it is therefore money-mandating for purposes of vesting the Court of Federal Claims with jurisdiction under the Tucker Act"
Roe v. Board of Trustees
65 A.D.3d 1211 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) Cited 9 times
No. 2008-08545. September 22, 2009. In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants' resolution terminating the plaintiffs paid health care benefits is null and void, and for a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from terminating the plaintiffs paid health care benefits, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated August 18, 2008, as awarded the plaintiff a permanent injunction
Lippman v. Board of Educ
66 N.Y.2d 313 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 35 times
In Lippman, an employee challenged a resolution of the Board of Education that reduced the school district's contribution to retiree health premiums from 100 percent to 50 percent.
Suttlehan v. Town of New Windsor
100 A.D.3d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 1 times
2012-11-7 Donald J. SUTTLEHAN, appellant, v. TOWN OF NEW WINDSOR, et al., respondents. Schnabel Law Offices, Chester, N.Y. (Philip H. Schnabel of counsel), for appellant. Michael D. Blythe, New Windsor, N.Y. (Ralph L. Puglielle, Jr., of counsel), for respondents. REINALDO E. RIVERA Schnabel Law Offices, Chester, N.Y. (Philip H. Schnabel of counsel), for appellant. Michael D. Blythe, New Windsor, N.Y. (Ralph L. Puglielle, Jr., of counsel), for respondents. , J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SHERI S. ROMAN
Section 73.3 - Charges and contributions
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 4 § 73.3 Cited 10 times
(a) Charges for coverage. Charges for coverage of employees of the State whose salaries are paid on a biweekly basis shall be payable to the respective insurers on a corresponding biweekly basis. Charges for coverage of all other employees and for coverage of all retired employees shall be payable to the respective insurers on a monthly basis. All such charges are subject to change from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the respective contracts or otherwise upon amendment of any such

Eileen Bransten,, et al., Respondents,v.State of New York, Appellant.

15 Cited authorities

Holding that the rule of necessity is an exception to the recusal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 455

Holding that where pursuant to statute taxes were withheld from judicial paychecks, a separate cause of action accrued with each individual paycheck under the continuing claim doctrine

Finding link between legislative and judicial pay increases unconstitutional under New York state constitution

Recognizing general principles of necessity

Holding that payment under judicial litigation expenses statute is mandatory, rather than discretionary, "when the statutory conditions are met, and it is therefore money-mandating for purposes of vesting the Court of Federal Claims with jurisdiction under the Tucker Act"

In Lippman, an employee challenged a resolution of the Board of Education that reduced the school district's contribution to retiree health premiums from 100 percent to 50 percent.