Matter of Paul T. v South Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist. (2015 NY Slip Op 25207)

Being bullied is not itself a legally recognizable disability if it does not rise to the level of adversely impacting educational performance.

Advertisements

High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in NYS – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

The SEQR Findings Statement for high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) was issued on June 29, 2015. This concluded DEC’s comprehensive, seven-year review and officially prohibits HVHF in New York.

The full 2015 Final SGEIS document is available as two large PDF files: Volume 1 (PDF) (35.8 MB) and Volume 2 (PDF) (8.4 MB). Although they are very large files, they are downloadable and searchable. Please note that new text in the final SGEIS has been underlined to indicate revisions to the 2011 revised draft SGEIS text, in accordance with the requirements of the SEQRA regulations, and vertical lines have been placed in the page margins at those locations.

Read and access all here.

Related articles

Statement by CFPB Director Richard Cordray on “Know Before You Owe” Mortgage Disclosure Rule Delay

“The CFPB will be issuing a proposed amendment to delay the effective date of the Know Before You Owe rule until October 1, 2015. We made this decision to correct an administrative error that we just discovered in meeting the requirements under federal law, which would have delayed the effective date of the rule by two weeks. We further believe that the additional time included in the proposed effective date would better accommodate the interests of the many consumers and providers whose families will be busy with the transition to the new school year at that time.”

Read CFPB press release here.

Related articles

Irving Younger’s 10 Commandments Of Cross Examination at UC Hastings College Of The Law – YouTube

Prof. Younger only gets better with age.  Here is his wonderful classic.

Public Hearings on Eligibility for Assignment of Counsel-ILS

In accordance with the settlement agreement between the State of New York and a plaintiff class represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union in Hurrell-Harrina et at. v. State of New York and approved by the Albany County Supreme Court, the Office of Indigent Legal Services (ILS) is charged with developing and issuing criteria and procedures to guide courts in counties located outside of New York City in determining whether a person is unable to afford counsel and eligible for mandated representation.

In furtherance of this responsibility, ILS will conduct a series of public hearings in each of the nine (9) judicial districts outside of New York City to solicit the views of county officials, judges, institutional providers of representation, assigned counsel, current and former indigent legal services clients and other individuals, programs, organizations and stakeholders interested in assisting ILS in establishing criteria and procedures to guide courts when determining eligibility for mandated legal representation in criminal and family court proceedings.  The first of these hearings will be in Syracuse, New York on July 9.

For more information, and instructions for providing written or oral testimony, go to: https://www.ils.ny.gov/files/Eligibility%20Public%20Hearings%20Notice.pdf.  Please feel free to contact me (or any member of the ILS staff) if you have questions about the hearings.

                      Take good care,

Angela Olivia Burton, Esq.

Director of Quality Enhancement, Parent Representation

New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services

80 South Swan Street, 29th Floor

Albany, New York 12210

Desk:  518-474-4859

Cell:  518-491-0094

Fax:  518-474-0505

http://www.ils.ny.gov

Vincent J. Gallo, Esq.: In Defense of Title Closers. – Richmond County Bar Association, Est. 1909

***

At the closing, the Title Closer is entrusted with transmitting by over-night delivery the payment in full satisfactory to satisfy the mortgage in full, at the risk to the Title Closer of these funds being insufficient to satisfy the mortgage, in full, at the further risk of the Lender returning these funds back to the Title Agency as being insufficient to satisfy the mortgage, with the clock continuing to run on a per diem basis, at the risk to the Title Closer in having to go in pocket to make up the difference, so as to not cause the mortgage to satisfied late, causing a late fee to be imposed as against the mortgagor, as well as a “black mark” on the mortgagor’s credit report.

For this task, the Title Closer is paid what is referred to as a “pick up fee”.¬† This is a fee paid to the Title Closer, not for the ministerial task of placing the check in an over-night envelope, but instead to serve as a “quasi-insurer” to ensure that all of the above tasks are fully executed on, to full completion, at the risk of potentially costing the Title Closer a small fortune for failing to execute on all, and I do mean ALL, of these above tasks.

For this, in an effort to save a Seller the pickup fee charge of 275.00, more or less, the Department of Financial Services wants to eliminate this charge, thereby preventing a Seller who must pay off his or her mortgage at a closing from having to pay this charge.

***

Read entire article here.

SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO:   ellen.buxbaum@dfs.ny.gov.

Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Legal Information Institute: Supreme Court

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/home

This archive from the Legal Information Institute is an excellent and frequently updated database concerning the activities of the U.S. Supreme Court. Readers may like to start with the Most Recent Decisions. Selecting any case navigates to a page featuring the Syllabus, Opinion, Concurrences, and Dissents of the Supreme Court’s most recent deliberations. In addition, readers may scout the Current awareness section, which examines decisions, orders, and case updates by date, as well as an Archive of decisions, which can be browsed by topic, author, and party. The site also features an excellent search function. For instance, typing “gay marriage” returns half a dozen important cases, including the landmark 2013 decision, United States v. Windsor, in which the court held that restricting marriage rights to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional.

From The Scout Report, Copyright Internet Scout 1994-2015. https://www.scout.wisc.edu

%d bloggers like this: