The Sixth District confirmed that post-resignation union dues disputes fall within SERB’s exclusive jurisdiction, affirming dismissal of state-court claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Second District affirmed the revocation of NGRI conditional release for a defendant who exhibited a pattern of treatment noncompliance and refusal to accept responsibility for underlying offenses.
The Fourth Department dismissed all of the City of Olean’s counterclaims against the Village of Allegany, holding that CPLR 9802’s notice-of-claim requirements apply to counterclaims and declaratory-relief theories, and that a notice limited to breach of contract cannot sustain claims premised on contract expiration, quantum meruit, or unjust enrichment.
The Eighth District affirmed dismissal of an unemployment compensation appeal filed 34 days after the Review Commission’s decision was mailed, holding the 30-day statutory deadline under R.C. 4141.282 is jurisdictional and cannot be overcome by creative pleading.
The Third Department dismisses a challenge to a County of Rensselaer administrative determination in an Article 78 proceeding.
The Third Department upholds an administrative determination by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision in an Article 78 proceeding, finding it supported by substantial evidence.
The Third Department addresses the denial of a licensing application based on the applicant’s failure to disclose arrest history and the reliability of character references who provided incorrect information.
The Third Department upholds the Comptroller’s denial of Article 15 retirement benefits, finding the determination supported by substantial evidence.
The Ninth Circuit denied California’s petition for review of the FMCSA’s determination that California’s meal and rest break rules are preempted as applied to drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles, extending the preemption previously upheld for property-carrying v
The First DCA affirmed summary judgment against a pari-mutuel permitholder challenging the constitutionality of a 2021 statutory provision requiring permit revocation from permitholders that had not operated in the previous fiscal year, rejecting due process, equal protection, and takings arguments.