§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Luz Solla, Respondent,v.Elizabeth Berlin, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Goldberg v. Kelly

    397 U.S. 254 (1970)   Cited 4,946 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process rights attach to the deprivation of Government benefits

  2. Rodriguez v. United States

    480 U.S. 522 (1987)   Cited 401 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding no irreconcilable conflict between a minimum sentence and the "suspension authority" of § 3651

  3. Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. Caputo

    432 U.S. 249 (1977)   Cited 325 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding an injury sustained while unloading a cargo container under the Longshoremens' and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

  4. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.

    514 U.S. 122 (1995)   Cited 114 times
    Holding that the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs in the U.S. Dept. of Labor lacked standing to challenge a decision by the Benefits Review Board, and finding that “when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing, Congress says so”

  5. Cintron v. Calogero

    99 A.D.3d 456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    2012-10-4 In re Oscar CINTRON, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Judith A. CALOGERO, etc., Respondent–Appellant. Gary R. Connor, New York, (Martin B. Schneider of counsel), for appellant. BAS Legal Advocacy Program, Inc., Bronx (Randolph Petsche of counsel), for respondent. ANDRIAS Gary R. Connor, New York, (Martin B. Schneider of counsel), for appellant. BAS Legal Advocacy Program, Inc., Bronx (Randolph Petsche of counsel), for respondent. ANDRIAS, J.P., SWEENY, CATTERSON, MOSKOWITZ, JJ. Order, Supreme

  6. Kimmel v. State

    115 A.D.3d 1323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    2014-03-28 Betty L. KIMMEL, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. STATE of New York and New York State Division of State Police, Defendants–Appellants. Emmelyn Logan–Baldwin, Interested Party–Respondent. Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel, LLP, Buffalo (Bradley A. Hoppe of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. Harriet L. Zunno, Hilton, for Plaintiff–Respondent. Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel, LLP, Buffalo (Bradley A. Hoppe of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. Harriet L. Zunno, Hilton, for Plaintiff–Respondent. Harris

  7. In re Application of Auguste v. Hammons

    285 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 11 times

    July 26, 2001. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J. upon decision of Salvador Collazo, J.), entered December 20, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, in a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding, granted petitioner's application for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and CPLR article 86, awarding petitioner attorney's fees in the principal amount of $11,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the application

  8. Solla v. Berlin

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 33638 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Index No. 401178/2011 07-14-2011 In the Matter of the Application of Luz Solla, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. Elizabeth Berlin, as Executive Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Robert Doar, as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration, and Jacqucline Dudley, as Deputy Commissioner of the New York City HIV/AIDS Services Administration, Respondents. ALEXANDER W. HUNTER

  9. ROE v. CITY OF NEW YORK

    No. 00 Civ. 9062 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2002)   Cited 5 times

    No. 00 Civ. 9062 (RWS) November 19, 2002 As Amended November 22, 2002 Urban Justice Center, Attorneys for Plaintiffs: New York, N.Y., By: Corinne A. Carey, Esq., Doug Lasdon, Esq. of Counsel, Debevoise Plimpton, New York, N.Y., By: Dennis H. Hranitzky, Esq. Helen Y. Kim, Esq. Of Counsel Swidler, Berlin, Shereff, Friedman, New York, N.Y., By: Adam J. Wasserman, Esq. Of Counsel Honorable Michael A. Cardozo, Attorney for Defendants: Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, N.Y., By: Lisa

  10. Matter of Riley v. Dowling

    221 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    November 13, 1995 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.). Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner Michael Riley commenced this proceeding in August 1993 to compel the New York City Department of Social Services (hereinafter the City DSS) to comply with a fair hearing decision issued in May 1993. The decision directed the City DSS to provide the petitioner with certain increased welfare benefits retroactive to June 1992, including