protections privilege in New York

2025The majority concludes, based upon Moody v NetChoice, LLC ( 603 US 707 [2024]), that even if plaintiffs seek to hold defendants liable for their own first-party content, such conduct is protected by the First Amendment.

2025The majority concludes, based upon Moody v NetChoice, LLC ( 603 US 707 [2024]), that even if plaintiffs seek to hold defendants liable for their own first-party content, such conduct is protected by the First Amendment.

2024Hyatt v State of Cal. Franchise Tax Bd., 105 AD3d 186 [2d Dept 2013] [ internal citation omitted] [explaining that the common interest exception "does not protect business or personal communications"]), Hecht fails to demonstrate that the common interest exception applies.

2008In essence, DOB’s position, embraced by BSA, trivializes the valuable property rights protected by the vested rights doctrine, a doctrine that advances “the constitutionally based common-law rule protecting nonconforming uses” (Ellington, 77 NY2d at 122 ). 4 Under BSA’s view of the requirement that a permit be validly issued, when a property owner constructs a foundation in good faith reliance on a foundation permit issued by a municipality and thereby incurs substantial expense (hundreds of thousands of dollars, for example), the owner is entitled to none of the protections of the doctrine wh

2007Corp., 2 AD3d at 1143 .) If an employee’s assigned task requires the employee “to work close to the edge” of an opening, to run pipes, wires, or plumb lines through it, for example, the protections clause (i) affords, a cover or railing, would prohibit accomplishing the task.

2007(See Bell v Bengomo Realty, 36 AD3d at 480 ; Luckern v Lyonsdale Energy Ltd.

2002In Seidlitz v Auerbach (supra), the liquidated damages provision was invalidated where the lease term at issue provided that the tenant would forfeit its entire security deposit, representing more than one year’s rent, for any contractual default, ranging from the failure to pay rent to the failure to pay a $17 insurance premium.

1993The Court noted, however, that if Gardner "had refused to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself * * * the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal.” (Supra.) In a companion case, Sanitation Men v Sanitation Commr. ( 392 US 280 [1968]), decided the same day as Gardner (supra), the Court again emphasized that public employees must "answer questions s

1993The Court noted, however, that if Gardner "had refused to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity with respect to the use of his answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal prosecution of himself * * * the privilege against self-incrimination would not have been a bar to his dismissal.” (Supra.) In a companion case, Sanitation Men v Sanitation Commr. ( 392 US 280 [1968]), decided the same day as Gardner (supra), the Court again emphasized that public employees must "answer questions s

1990It has long been the law that the Double Jeopardy Clause is an absolute bar to further fact-finding proceedings after an acquittal (United States v Ball, 163 US 662, 671 , supra).