State of New York. The State of New York hereby approves this Agreement of the Parties to the U.S. Supreme Court Decree of 1954 for a Flexible Flow Management Program and recommends that this Agreement be submitted to the Delaware River Basin Commission for implementation as appropriate through rules, dockets and/ or resolutions, subject in each instance to the further agreement of the Parties as required by Section 3.3(a) of the Delaware River Basin Compact.
State of New York. This contract shall be deemed to have been made in the State of New York and shall be governed and interpreted in all respects under the laws of the State of New York. Any dispute arising under this contract shall be resolved in an action in the courts of New York State or the federal courts located within New York State, and the parties hereby consent to personal jurisdiction of such courts in any such action.
State of New York. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION In the Matter of a Remedial Program for Xxxxxxxx Building and Associated Parking Lot under Article 27, Title 14 of the Environmental Conservation Law - by - 234-250 XXXXXXX ST. LLC, Applicant. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DEC Index # B8-0692-05-04 Site # C828127 BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS This matter involves a dispute between 234-250 Xxxxxxx St. LLC (applicant) and staff of the Department of Environmental Conservation (Department). Applicant and the Department entered into a Xxxxxxxxxx Cleanup Agreement (BCA), dated August 31, 2005 (DEC Index No. B8-0692-05-04), pursuant to which applicant was obligated to remediate contamination at 00 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Rochester, County of Monroe (site). The dispute relates to applicant’s objection to staff's decision to terminate the BCA. By letter dated September 5, 2012, applicant filed a request (request) for formal dispute resolution with the Office of Hearings and Mediation Services (OHMS). The request states that it is being brought pursuant to section XIV.B of the BCA (request at 1). Department staff responded (staff response) to the request by letter dated September 10, 2012. On December 19, 2012, staff provided this office with a copy of the BCA and a copy of a March 21, 2012 letter from staff to applicant that is referenced in the staff response. On March 26, 2013 staff counsel advised this office that applicant was trying to pay oversight costs owed to the Department and that applicant may seek to "get back into the program by re-applying." On June 25, 2013, this office sought an update from the parties. Staff advised that the dispute between the parties over the termination of the BCA remained open and that the parties were not engaged in any discussions to resolve the matter. Under the terms of the BCA, when an applicant files a request for formal dispute resolution, XXXX must prepare and submit a report and recommendation to the Director of the Division of Environmental Remediation (DER) (see BCA, subparagraph XIV.B.4). Accordingly, this report and recommendation is submitted to the Director of DER, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, for his final decision resolving the dispute.
State of New York. Div. of State Police, 31 X. Xxxx. 2d 100, 106 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Plaintiff’s vague and blanket description of ‘prepare for trial’ * * * does not adequately inform the Court of the nature and extent of the work performed and therefore provides an inadequate basis to determine the reasonableness of th[o]se claimed hours.”) Moreover, Xx. Xxxxx billed for preparing for trial in May, June and September 2012, when no date for a trial had even been scheduled yet. Many of Xx. Xxxxx’x billing entries are also excessive. For example, Xx. Xxxxx billed eight and seven-tenths (8.7) hours drafting a memorandum to Xx. Xxxxx regarding moving for partial summary judgment on the issue of Xxxxxx’x individual liability; another nineteen (19) hours drafting the motion for partial summary judgment; nine and seven-tenths (9.7) hours to revise the motion; and an additional two and a half (2.5) hours to prepare thirteen (13) exhibits for the motion, which is a clerical task. Billing a total of thirty-nine (39) hours and fifty-four (54) minutes to work first on a memorandum presumably addressing the viability of such a motion, then on a motion consisting of a two (2)-page notice of motion, four (4)-page 56.1 Statement, twelve (12)-page declaration, and eleven (11)-page memorandum of law raising three (3) points, including the standard of review on a motion for summary judgment, is duplicative and excessive. In addition, Xx. Xxxxx billed more than three and a half (3.5) hours for “analy[zing]” Xxxxxx’x response to the motion for summary judgment,8 and twenty-three and a half (23.5) 8 Since Xx. Xxxxx “block-billed” one and two-tenths (1.2) hours for “Prepar[ing] for trial[,] Review[ing] defendant’s arguments and authorities[,] [and] Draft[ing] summary[]” on September 24, 2012, the Court cannot discern the total number of hours she actually billed for hours for researching and drafting “Reply Papers” on the motion for partial summary judgment consisting of a seven (7)-page declaration and nine (9)-page reply memorandum of law, which is excessive. Similarly, Xx. Xxxxx billed three and one-tenth (3.1) hours to review defendants’ Rule 60(b) motion and twenty-two (22) hours to draft an opposition thereto consisting of a nine (9)- page declaration and a thirteen (13)-page memorandum of law, exclusive of the table of authorities, affidavits of service and table of contents, which is excessive. Moreover, Xx. Xxxxx improperly bills for drafting and docketing a stipulation extending plaintiffs’...
State of New York was approved by the Albany County Supreme Court. The agreement vests the New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services (ILS) with the responsibility of developing and issuing criteria and procedures to guide courts in counes located outside of New York City in determining whether a person is unable to afford counsel and eligible for mandated representaon. PURPOSE: ILS will conduct a series of public hearings to solicit the views of county officials, judges, instuonal providers of representaon, assigned counsel, current and former indigent legal services clients and other individuals, programs, organizaons and stakeholders interested in assisng ILS in establishing criteria and procedures to guide courts when determining eligibility for mandated legal representaon in criminal and family court proceedings. Interested parcipants should provide tesmony regarding current and/or recommended guidelines, policies and pracces relang to the following topics: • The criteria for determining whether an individual is eligible for court appointed counsel which may include, but not be limited to, the ability to post bond, the actual cost of retaining private counsel, the income needed to meet reasonable living expenses of the applicant and any dependents or dependent parent or spouse, the severity of the case, the ownership of an automobile that may or may not be necessary for the applicant to maintain his/her employment, the receipt of public benefits, home or other property and non-liquid assets, and income including income and assets of family members, debts and financial obliga ons, employment and housing status, including residence in a correc onal or mental health facility, the use of fixed poverty guidelines and any other criteria that may be included for consideraon. • The process and/or method for disseminang informaon regarding the criteria for determining eligibility. • The process of reviewing, appealing and/or reconsidering eligibility determinaons. • The advantages and disadvantages of proposing uniform and comprehensive criteria and/or guidelines to determine eligibility. • The need to preserve confidenality of informaon submied to determine eligibility. • Any related social and economic benefits and/or consequences related to the impact of standardizing eligibility determina ons.
State of New York. The provisions of Section 10 (Choice of law, Venue and Jury Trial Waiver Etc.) of the Loan Agreement shall apply hereto as if more fully set forth herein as if references therein to “this Agreement” were references to this Amendment and Waiver.
State of New York. This Agreement and each Warrant Certificate issued hereunder shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of New York, without regard to principles of conflicts of laws, and for all purposes shall be construed in accordance with the internal laws of said State.
State of New York ss. COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ---------------------------- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and sworn before me this 2nd day of May, 2002, by DAVID RODRIGUEZ, as Associatx Xxxxxxxx xx XEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a New York corporation. /s/ G. Ann Olivia Notary Public [SEAL] My Commission Expires: 11/30/02
State of New York. The Borrower hereby submits to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and of any New York State court sitting in New York City for purposes of all legal proceedings arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the Notes or the transactions contemplated hereby. The Borrower irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such proceeding brought in such a court and any claim that any such proceeding brought in such a court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.
State of New York. The officials of the,State of New York and its sub divisions authorized to obtain such in formation are (i) the Adjutant General,
