 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Matter of Long Is. R. R. Co. v. Madison, 500857,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the DOT had authority under Railroad Law § 97-a(3)(a) to designate a railroad crossing on an owner's property as a farm crossing and to apportion the responsibilities and costs for the crossing, there was sufficient evidence to support its determination that a certain crossing qualified as a farm crossing under Railroad Law § 52.
|
|||||
| Matter of Marx v. Tucker, 98826,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In proceeding under Family Ct Act art. 6, since orders regarding father's involvement with social services department contained scant detail concerning father's conduct, review of decision granting grandmother custody of father's child was precluded. Matter was remitted for trial court to further articulate existence of extraordinary circumstances.
|
|||||
| Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v. Maul, 99481,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the mental retardation commissioner was obligated to investigate allegations of abuse or mistreatment, and because Mental Hygiene Law § 47.03(d) expressly limited the commissioner's further disclosure of the information and documents, the trial court properly compelled disclosure of an assault investigation.
|
|||||
| Matter of Noble v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 500351,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New York State Department of Correctional Services correctly computed petitioner's maximum expiration date at April 4, 2005, and his conditional release date at April 4, 2002 (Penal Law § 70.30). An application to review the denial of petitioner's request to recalculate the expiration date of his sentence was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Matter of Oms v. Goord, 500749,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In CPLR art. 78 proceeding, substantial evidence supported finding that inmate was guilty of possession of narcotics because misbehavior report and test of suspected contraband form established unbroken chain of custody, which was bolstered by inmate's acknowledgement that contraband was his and that tests performed on it were performed correctly.
|
|||||
| Matter of Rivers v. Blue Ridge Farms, Inc., 99361,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Matter of Rizzuto v. Goord, 98479,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's CPLR art. 78 petition to annul ruling of correctional services commissioner that found inmate guilty of using telephone calling card was granted as commissioner conceded that there was not substantial evidence to support ruling. There was no recommended loss of good time and inmate had served penalty, so penalty was not redetermined.
|
|||||
| Matter of Thornton & Naumes, LLP v. Athari Law Off., 501051,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a second law firm satisfied all the requirements in CPLR 6212(a), 7502(c), the trial court properly concluded that all the requirements for issuance of an order of attachment against the property of the first attorney, the third law firm, and the second attorney in aid of arbitration were satisfied.
|
|||||
| Matter of Tully v. Live Right Realty Corp., 500875,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT, January 18, 2007, Decided , January 18, 2007, Entered
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
