§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Empire Center for New York State Policy, Appellant,v.New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Respondent.

Brief

33 Cited authorities

  1. Rocovich v. Consol Edison Co.

    78 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 1,697 times
    Holding that "[i]t is an accepted rule that all parts of a statute are intended to be given effect and that a statutory construction which renders one part meaningless should be avoided"

  2. Bumpus v. New York City Transit Authority

    66 A.D.3d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 325 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an insufficient description subjects the 'Jane Doe' complaint to dismissal for being jurisdictionally defective"

  3. Capital Newspapers v. Burns

    67 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 292 times
    In Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562, 505 N.Y.S.2d 576, 496 N.E.2d 665 (Ct.App.1986), the Court of Appeals stated that " the legislative intent underlying the enactment of Civil Rights Law § 50-a was narrowly specific, ‘ to prevent time-consuming and perhaps vexatious investigation into irrelevant collateral matters in the context of a civil or criminal action.’ "

  4. Commonwealth of the N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3018 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 116 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase “possession or custody” in § 5225(b) requires actual, and not merely constructive, possession

  5. Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz

    47 N.Y.2d 567 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 300 times
    Noting that FOIL "established a general policy [in favor of] disclosure"

  6. Matter of Yolanda D

    88 N.Y.2d 790 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 178 times
    Discussing N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012

  7. New York Times Co. v. Regenhard

    4 N.Y.3d 477 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 125 times
    Recognizing that a right of privacy exists in the affairs of the dead

  8. M. Farbman & Sons, Inc. v. New York City Health

    62 N.Y.2d 75 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 193 times
    Treating HHC as a governmental agency subject to FOIL's “legislative declaration that government is the public's business”

  9. Washington Post v. Ins Dept

    61 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 177 times
    Stating that promises of confidentiality by a state agency do not affect the status of documents as records subject to required disclosure under FOIL, nor do such promises affect the applicability of any exemption under FOIL's provisions

  10. Friedman v. Connecticut

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7771 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 75 times

    No. 116. Argued September 5, 2007. decided October 18, 2007. 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 June 29, 2006. The Appellate Division order, insofar as appealed from, modified, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.; op 2004 NY Slip Op 30089[U]), which had granted defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the first

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation