§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Gerald E. Loehr et al., Respondents,v.Administrative Board of the Courts of the State of New York, Appellant.

Brief

28 Cited authorities

  1. Misicki v. Caradonna

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3764 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 594 times
    Holding that 12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 23-9.2 imposes a nondelegable duty to make "necessary repairs or replacement" upon discovery of any unsafe condition

  2. Frost Trucking Co. v. R.R. Com

    271 U.S. 583 (1926)   Cited 360 times
    Holding that the state violated, inter alia, the due process rights of a private trucking company by conditioning the use of its highways on the acceptance of all of the duties and burdens placed on a common carrier; concluding that "[i]t would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold"

  3. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. 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 October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  4. Way v. Grantling

    289 A.D.2d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 62 times
    Concluding that the legislature intended "permanent total disability" to relate to the injured party's employability because the majority of the other "grave injury" categories would not disable the employee from engaging in day-to-day functions and finding a sufficient material question of fact based on evidence of plaintiff's permanent disability "`from competitive employment' in even the most menial of tasks"

  5. Brady v. Williams

    64 A.D.3d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Brady, the court found that the fee-splitting provision of an employment arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable given the cost of $21,150 to a plaintiff who had earned between $100,000 and $405,000 in the prior five years but was then unemployed.

  6. Telaro v. Telaro

    25 N.Y.2d 433 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 121 times

    Argued October 28, 1969 Decided December 4, 1969 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, FREDERICK BACKER, J. Leonard C. Shalleck, Irving I. Erdheim and Milton P. Falk for appellant. Morris H. Halpern and Abraham J. Heller for respondent. BREITEL, J. This appeal involves an action by a wife to recover, inter alia, one half of some $24,800 withdrawn by her husband, defendant-respondent, from a brokerage account held at that time in the names of both

  7. Larson v. Albany Medical Center

    252 A.D.2d 936 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 25 times
    Identifying an exception to the per se rule “where a publication charges a professional person with a single error in judgment, which the law presumes not to injure reputation”

  8. Sgaglione v. Levitt

    37 N.Y.2d 507 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that "necessarily implied in this constitutional, albeit perhaps limited, protection of the underlying `contract' providing for benefits is the protection of the sources of funds for those benefits, whether by way of continuing contributions by employees, employers, or the reserve funds required to be maintained under the retirement plan"

  9. Ballentine v. Koch

    89 N.Y.2d 51 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 24 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Police Benevolent Association, which had agreed to recommend to the state legislature a bill creating a separate benefit fund, was bound by version of law negotiated and passed during legislative process. The Court also held that PBA officers were "acting outside the scope of its representational authority in agreeing to the statutory provisions at issue . . . [P]laintiffs designated the PBA as their agent for the collective bargaining negotiations at issue here and were thus bound by its actions taken on their behalf during the negotiation process . . ."

  10. Loehr v. Admin. Bd. of the Courts of State

    130 A.D.3d 89 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    519568 06-18-2015 In the Matter of Gerald E. LOEHR et al., Appellants, v. ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF the COURTS OF the STATE of New York, Respondent. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains (Robert A. Spolzino of counsel), for appellants. John W. McConnell, Office of Court Administration, New York City (John J. Sullivan, Albany, of counsel), for respondent. CLARK, J. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, White Plains (Robert A. Spolzino of counsel), for appellants. John W