Cases

================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 102 SSM 8 In the Matter of Anthony J. Russo, Respondent, v. New York City Department of Education, Appellant. Submitted by Kathy Chang Park, for appellant. Submitted by Anthony J. Russo, respondent, pro se

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.

PER CURIAM. | ¶ This writ concerns whether defendant, Lionel Burns, Jr., must be disqualified from candidacy for the office of Orleans Parish District Attorney. For the reasons articulated below, we find the defendant falsely certified having filed his Louisiana individual income tax returns for the years 2010-2013, and, therefore, is disqualified from candidacy under Louisiana law. On August 20th, 2014,

DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge. I,This is an election contest suit. Plaintiff/appellant, Anthony J. Russo, appeals the trial court’s judgment which overruled its previous decision to disqualify the ap-pellee, Lionel Lon Burns, as a candidate of Orleans Parish District Attorney.2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. *379

DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge. L This appeal results from an election contest suit. The appellant, Lionel Lon Burns, appeals the trial court’s judgment that granted the petition of plaintiff, Anthony Russo, to disqualify Mr. Burns as a candidate for the position of Orleans Parish District Attorney. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent w

OPINION OF THE COURT On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order insofar as appealed from reversed, with costs, New York City Department of Education’s cross motion to dismiss the petition granted in its entirety, and certified question answered in the negative. We cannot say that “the penalty of [termination] . . . shocks the judicial conscience” (Matter of Kelly

In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated February 19, 2014, which denied his motion to vacate an amended judgment of the same court dated August 12, 2013, entered upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint, and, thereupon, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of drug possession and smuggling. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of drug possession and smuggling. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of assaulting staff, refusing a direct order, violent conduct, interfering with an employee and refusing a frisk procedure. Acco

Matter of Russo v New York City Dept. of Educ. (2014 NY Slip Op 05032) Matter of Matter of Russo v New York City Dept. of Educ. 2014 NY Slip Op 05032 Decided on July 3, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reportin

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge. Plaintiff Anthony Crivello Russo (“Plaintiff’), proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendants John DiMilia (“DiMilia”), Darrell Algarin (“Algarin”), and Michael Guedes (“Guedes”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants violated Plaintiffs federal constitutional and state law rights in the course of arresting him on December

ORDER The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-062, concluding that ANTHONY J. LA RUSSO of CALDWELL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), and RPC 1.7(a)(2) (conflict of in

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The

453 B.R. 782 (2011) In re Timothy J. ANTHONY, Debtor. No. 10-32335 (MBK). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey. August 3, 2011. *783 David E. Shaver, Esq., Broege, Neumann, Fischer & Shaver, LLC, Manasquan, NJ, for Creditor, Michel Parillo-Anthony. Robert Manchel, Esq., Law Offices of Robert Manchel, Marlton, NJ, for

39 S.W.3d 717 (2001) Anthony E. GILL, Appellant, v. Nicholas J. RUSSO, Appellee. No. 01-00-00070-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.). March 1, 2001. *718 Anthony E. Gill, Beeville, for Appellant. John Gregory Myers, Houston, for Appellee. Panel consists of Justices COHEN, JENNINGS, and DUGGAN.[*]

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correct

140 N.J. 544 (1995) 659 A.2d 1371 GERARD DOTO AND MARIA DOTO, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. ANTHONY RUSSO AND RUSSO AGENCY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued February 15, 1995. Decided June 29, 1995. *546 Robert D.