Cases from cite.case.law:

BOUVENG, v. NYG CAPITAL LLC d b a FNL LLC,, 175 F. Supp. 3d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

. . . Penal Law § 155.15(2); see also People v. . . . Penal Law § 155.15(2)). . . .

HUNT v. HADDEN, W. P. C., 159 F. Supp. 3d 800 (E.D. Mich. 2016)

. . . He stated that he spent more time on the case itself— 155.15 more hours, to be exact — but he is not . . .

SPARTON CORPORATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 89 Fed. Cl. 190 (Fed. Cl. 2009)

. . . PX-155.15-.16; JX-30.1. . . .

In LOGAL, v., 381 B.R. 706 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2007)

. . . a.One (1) check payable to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission for Investigative Expenses of $155.15 . . . Plaintiff paid the $155.15 due to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission for Investigative expenses . . .

DAWKINS, v. A. WILLIAMS,, 511 F. Supp. 2d 248 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)

. . . Penal Law § 155.15(2). . . . Nor does the Section 155.15(2) good-faith defense apply to the conduct of “[p]erform[ing] any other act . . . The rationale for not making the Section 155.15(2) good-faith defense available to a defendant on a charge . . . Penal Law § 155.15(7) (which is not the subdivision at issue in this case) is unconstitutional to the . . . Penal Law § 155.15(2) (providing that the good-faith defense is available only "[i]n any prosecution . . .

SUAREZ, v. G. BENNETT,, 171 F. App'x 361 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . Penal Law § 155.15(1) (providing that a good faith claim of right is an affirmative defense for a larceny . . .

In T. RINCON C., 133 B.R. 594 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1991)

. . . Thus, for purposes of the original plan, DTCU was secured to the extent of $10,-155.15 and was entitled . . .

In THREE MILE ISLAND LITIGATION, 557 F. Supp. 96 (M.D. Pa. 1982)

. . . Claim Forms 42.90 Case Planning 129.0 Settlement 13.70 Pleadings 12.25 Jurisdiction 2.0 Document Review 155.15 . . .

FORNEY v. S. WOLKE, 483 F. Supp. 808 (E.D. Wis. 1980)

. . . expenditure of 239.07 hours and out-of-pocket expenses, costs, and disbursements in the amount of $155.15 . . . The total award requested is $17,047.90, which includes $16,892.75 in attorneys’ fees and $155.15 in . . .

UNITED STATES W. O. COLEMAN, v. SMITH,, 395 F. Supp. 1155 (W.D.N.Y. 1975)

. . . . § 155.15 (1965), pursuant to statutory authority under the New York Corrections Law. . . .

UNITED STATES POLLACK, v. D. McGINNIS,, 337 F. Supp. 1220 (S.D.N.Y. 1971)

. . . . § 155.15. . . .

UNITED STATES SPERLING, v. V. FITZPATRICK,, 426 F.2d 1161 (2d Cir. 1970)

. . . . § 155.15(c), which provides that a parolee “hereby consents to any search of his person, his residence . . .

UNITED STATES RANDAZZO, v. W. FOLLETTE,, 418 F.2d 1319 (2d Cir. 1969)

. . . . § 155.15 contains the terms required to be included within the parole agreement: 155.15 Contents of . . .

Co. v., 61 Cust. Ct. 1 (Cust. Ct. 1968)

. . . papers, which was May 25, 1965; 'the rate of duty under TSUS was 32 per cent ad valorem under Item 155.15 . . .