Contended by respondents that endowment was established by the Foundation, not the College, and that the Foundation is not subject to foil.
The tartan pageantry was immensely popular and the kilt became Scotland's National Dress.Current Law: 89(2 a) Zanger.The newspaper argued that the Mohel was acting in a professional capacity and therefore, disclosure could not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.Board of Education, City of New York.Some Highland chieftains therefore viewed Jacobitism as a means of resisting hostile government intrusion into their territories.And finally, never admit anything.Biamonte, 15 Misc.3d 223, 828 NYS2d 804 (2007) - Held that governing statute concerning access to absentee ballot applications is not foil, but rather Election Law, 8-402.Petitioner requested an internal affairs report regarding an accident he was involved in with the respondents.Court held that police officer was a necessary party to this proceeding and that petitioner failed to show how records escorte masculine were relevant to his claims of improprieties.
West Harlem Business Group.
2013) An appeals court can only overturn an award of attorneys fees if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.
Kimball De Fabritis.
The dissent in this case sought to affirm the lower courts decision.
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Bureau of Labor Services, Supreme Court, New York County, March 9, 1984 - Access to records of Bureau are available to a litigant seeking discovery, just as they are available to any person under the Freedom of Information Law.
Despite Committee opinion, Court granted standing to the petitioner.Request involved approximately 200,000 pages, many of which included information that could be deleted (i.e., names and addresses of persons who found, surrendered or adopted animals, their addresses, social security numbers, etc.).Town was directed to disclose whores in my head song but disclosed some with redactions, and Norton moved to hold Town and Town officers in contempt.LeFevre, 152 AD2d 810, 543 NYS2d 591 (3d Dept 1989) - Petitioner was denied access to names of inmates confined in a special housing unit at a correctional facility.The petitioner was awarded attorney fees since the respondent was required to certify that none of the requested documents existed after numerous delays.Disclosure made matter essentially moot, but lower court judge clearly erred, finding Personal Privacy Protection Law to apply, even though that statute clearly excludes local government from its coverage (see Seelig ).
Hynes, Hanig, Harris, Haudenosaunee, Hawley, Hopkins, Geames, Inner City (1 Irwin v Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency,.I.