forum claim in New York

1994The forum analysis developed out of the long-recognized principle that governments, whether State or Federal, are not required to permit all forms of speech on all property that they own and control (see, e.g., United States Postal Serv. v Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 US 114, 129-130 ; Greer v Spock, 424 US 828, 836 ; Lehman v City of Shaker Hgts., 418 US 298, 302-303 ).

1990Fund, supra, at 800; Frisby v Schultz, 487 US 474 ; United States Postal Serv. v Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 US 114, 129-131 ; Adderley v Florida, supra).

1963(Cf. Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 224 N. Y. 99 ; Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, 9 N Y 2d 34; Davenport v. Webb, 11 N Y 2d 392.) It is the mandate of section 601 (subd. b, par. [2]) only that commands reference to Ontario law.

1935This we may not do. “ Whenever a court of one State is required to ascertain what effect a public act of another State has in that State, the law of such other State must be proved as a fact.” (Lloyd v. Matthews, 155 U. S. 222 .) Plaintiff may select the forum in which his claim to relief shall be heard, but he cannot, by such selection, measure the acts of a public officer of another State by the standard imposed upon public officers in this State. “ We are not so provincial as to say that every solution of a problem is wrong because we deal with it otherwise at home.” (Loucks v. Standard Oil

1948(City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., 122 App. Div. 748 ; City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., 124 id. 641.) The proper forum to test that question is provided for in section 666, subdivision 6, of the New York City Charter, effective January 1, 1938.” In Sacer Realty Corporation, v. Archer (68 N. Y.

1941(City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., 122 App. Div. 748 ; City of New York v. Wineburgh Advertising Co., 124 id. 641.) The proper forum to test that question is provided for in section 666, subdivision 6, of the New York City Charter, effective January 1, 1938.

2018The dissent also discussed defendants' alternative challenges to the defamation suit (which the majority had no need to reach), reasoning that the alleged defamatory statements were neither true on the basis of the complaint nor protected expression of opinion ( see id. at 36 [Kapnick, J., dissenting]).{**31 NY3d at 669} The Appellate Division granted plaintiff leave to appeal, certifying the question whether its order was properly made ( 2017 NY Slip Op 69650[U] [1st Dept 2017]).

2017Accordingly, under these circumstances, the father’s petitions were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see Matter of Malik v Fhara, 97 AD3d at 584 ; Matter of Mzimaz v Barik, 89 AD3d 948 [2011]; Matter of Navarrete v Wyatt, 52 AD3d 836 [2008]; Matter of Randall v Randall, 305 AD2d 512 [2003]).

2017Moreover, as relied upon in applying absolute privilege in NASD U-5 termination cases, it is "significant that there are remedies available to an employee who disputes the employer's statements" ( Cicconi v McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc. , 27 AD3d 59, 63 [1st Dept 2005] lv dismissed 6 NY3d 807 [2006]); specifically, an "arbitration proceeding or court action to expunge any alleged defamatory language" ( Rosenberg , 8 NY3d at 368 ).

2017Moreover, as relied upon in applying absolute privilege in NASD U-5 termination cases, it is “significant that there are remedies available to an employee who disputes the employer’s statements” (Cicconi v McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc., 27 AD3d 59, 63 [1st Dept 2005], lv dismissed 6 NY3d 807 [2006]); specifically, an “arbitration proceeding or court action to expunge any alleged defamatory language” (Rosenberg, 8 NY3d at 368 ).

2017Accordingly, under these circumstances, the father’s petitions were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see Matter of Malik v Fhara, 97 AD3d at 584 ; Matter of Mzimaz v Barik, 89 AD3d 948 [2011]; Matter of Navarrete v Wyatt, 52 AD3d 836 [2008]; Matter of Randall v Randall, 305 AD2d 512 [2003]).

2017Accordingly, under these circumstances, the father’s petitions were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see Matter of Malik v Fhara, 97 AD3d at 584 ; Matter of Mzimaz v Barik, 89 AD3d 948 [2011]; Matter of Navarrete v Wyatt, 52 AD3d 836 [2008]; Matter of Randall v Randall, 305 AD2d 512 [2003]).

2017Moreover, as relied upon in applying absolute privilege in NASD U-5 termination cases, it is "significant that there are remedies available to an employee who disputes the employer's statements" ( Cicconi v McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc. , 27 AD3d 59, 63 [1st Dept 2005] lv dismissed 6 NY3d 807 [2006]); specifically, an "arbitration proceeding or court action to expunge any alleged defamatory language" ( Rosenberg , 8 NY3d at 368 ).

2017Moreover, as relied upon in applying absolute privilege in NASD U-5 termination cases, it is “significant that there are remedies available to an employee who disputes the employer’s statements” (Cicconi v McGinn, Smith & Co., Inc., 27 AD3d 59, 63 [1st Dept 2005], lv dismissed 6 NY3d 807 [2006]); specifically, an “arbitration proceeding or court action to expunge any alleged defamatory language” (Rosenberg, 8 NY3d at 368 ).

2017Accordingly, under these circumstances, the father’s petitions were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see Matter of Malik v Fhara, 97 AD3d at 584 ; Matter of Mzimaz v Barik, 89 AD3d 948 [2011]; Matter of Navarrete v Wyatt, 52 AD3d 836 [2008]; Matter of Randall v Randall, 305 AD2d 512 [2003]).

2010In all but one instance, the discovery rulings were proper exercises of the motion court’s broad discretion in such matters (see generally Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 54 AD3d 286 [2008], affd 12 NY3d 846 [2009], cert denied 559 US —, 130 S Ct 1301 [2010]).

2010In all but one instance, the discovery rulings were proper exercises of the motion court’s broad discretion in such matters (see generally Arts4All, Ltd. v Hancock, 54 AD3d 286 [2008], affd 12 NY3d 846 [2009], cert denied 559 US —, 130 S Ct 1301 [2010]).

2010In this dispute arising out of plaintiffs representation of defendant in a divorce proceeding in London, England, the motion court properly determined that the courts of England are the appropriate forum for hearing plaintiffs fee claims and defendant’s legal malpractice counterclaims (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).

2004(See Rogers, 89 NY2d at 698 [applying federal public forum analysis to New York State Constitution]; United for Peace & Justice v City of New York, 323 F3d 175, 176 [2d Cir 2003]; People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v Giuliani, 105 F Supp 2d 294 , 336 [SD NY 2000] [“New York state courts apply a forum analysis, along with the concomitant standards, similar to the doctrine formulated by the Supreme Court to govern First Amendment cases”].) The principal inquiry in determining content neutrality is whether the government adopted a regulation because it disagrees with a message conveyed.

2004(Ward v Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781, 791 [1989], reh denied 492 US 937 [1989]; Housing Works, Inc., 283 F3d at 480 .) “The government’s purpose is the controlling consideration.

2004(Ward v Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781, 791 [1989], reh denied 492 US 937 [1989]; Housing Works, Inc., 283 F3d at 480 .) “The government’s purpose is the controlling consideration.

2002Furthermore, defendant’s efforts to interpose his constitutional challenge were effectively frustrated by the contrary view expressed in open court by his legal advisor to the effect that defendant’s prior New York conviction was constitutional (see People v Rozzell, 20 NY2d 712 ).

1994The forum analysis developed out of the long-recognized principle that governments, whether State or Federal, are not required to permit all forms of speech on all property that they own and control (see, e.g., United States Postal Serv. v Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 US 114, 129-130 ; Greer v Spock, 424 US 828, 836 ; Lehman v City of Shaker Hgts., 418 US 298, 302-303 ).

1994The forum analysis developed out of the long-recognized principle that governments, whether State or Federal, are not required to permit all forms of speech on all property that they own and control (see, e.g., United States Postal Serv. v Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 US 114, 129-130 ; Greer v Spock, 424 US 828, 836 ; Lehman v City of Shaker Hgts., 418 US 298, 302-303 ).