You are here: / / residency requirements for school district employees are enforceable.
, , ,

residency requirements for school district employees are enforceable.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined the requirement that employees of the School District of the City of Niagara Falls reside in the City of Niagara Falls serves a legitimate purpose and is not related to job performance. Therefore, only notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegation of a violation of the requirement are necessary to comply with due process. Matter of Beck-Nichols v Bianco, 2013 NY Slip Op 01015 [20 NY3d 540], CtApp, 2-19-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IN THE LOWER COURT; THEREFORE THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE PLAINTIFF’S CORRESPONDENCE-EVIDENCE THAT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAD BEEN ENTERED AND BREACHED BY THE DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).
THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES UNTIL THE VICTIM TURNS 18, WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO RENDER THE INDICTMENT TIMELY; THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOLLING PROVISION AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT FOR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS INJURY PROPER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEX OFFENSE COMMITTED DURING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD.
Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated
​ALL AGREED A MULTIPLICITOUS COUNT SHOULD BE DISMISSED; THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PROSECUTION HERE WAS UNNECESSARY AND A RESTORATIVE-JUSTICE APPROACH WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST (CT APP).
Presumption of Vindictive Sentencing Did Not Apply Here Where Defendant Rejected a Plea Offer with a Sentence of Ten Years Probation and, After Trial, Was Sentenced to 10 to 20 Years in Prison
HERE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS WAS NOT “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” WHEN HE COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STANDARD, NOT THE HIGHER “RECKLESS” STANDARD FOR HIGHWAY WORKERS IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, APPLIED TO THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Breathalyzer Maintenance and Calibration Records are Nontestimonial/Vehicle... any failure by defense counsel to move to suppress identification testimony...