Cases

Mulvey, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Rumsey, J.), entered March 22, 2016 in Tompkins County, *1142 which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. In September 2014, plaintiff commenced this action for dental malpractice by filing a

OPINION OF THE COURT Thomas J. DiSalvo, J. History of the Case The defendant was charged with common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), per se driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2-a]), operating a motor vehicle with registration suspended or revoked (Vehic

MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief Judge Pending before the Court are the plaintiffs Application for Preliminary Injunction (“Pl.’s PI Mot.”), ECF No. 3, and Motion to Consolidate (“Pl.’s Mot. Consolidate”), ECF No. 39. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks “a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to grant him a permanent religious accommodation th

PER CURIAM. Amarjit Singh, his wife Manjit Kaur, and their son Dripinder Singh, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their fourth motion to reopen removal proceedings. After careful review, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and numerically barred. See Zheng v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 893 (8th

*442MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, District Judge. These actions are brought under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 against Prosensa Holding N.V. (“Prosensa”), its underwriters, and certain of its officers and directors (collectively, “defendants”), on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased or other

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. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Peters, EJ., Stein, Rose, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without cost

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered October 11, 2013 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Farole denying petitioner’s request for parole release. *1210In 1990, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 2 to 4V2 years followi

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered October 11, 2013 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Farole denying petitioner’s request for parole release. *1210In 1990, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 2 to 4V2 years followi

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. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Peters, EJ., Stein, Rose, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without cost

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge On December 17, 2015, the defendant in this criminal matter pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Major Fraud on the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1031 (2012), see Information at 6, as a result of “execut[ing] a scheme to defraud the Small Business Administration [ (‘SBA’)

637 F.3d 1063 (2011) Nirmal SINGH; Kulwant Kaur; Sanjot Singh, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Kulwant Kaur; Sanjot Singh, Petitioners, v. Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Nos. 06-74547, 07-71289. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted January 12, 2011.[*] Filed March 25

457 B.R. 790 (2011) In re Chand K. SINGH, Debtor(s). Chand K. Singh, Plaintiff(s), v. U.S. Bank; Mortgage Electronic Information Systems, Inc.; Central Mortgage Company; and William G. Malcolm, Defendant(s). Bankruptcy No. 10-42260-E-13. Adversary No. 11-2049. Docket Control No. CJO-1. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California, Sacramento Division. September 16, 2011.

Opinion McINTYRE, J. In this case we address whether subjecting sex offenders convicted under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) (section 288(a)) (lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor under the age of 14), to mandatory sex offender registration violates their right to equal protection of the laws where registration for certain other sex offenders is discretionary. (Undesignated statutory references are

NOONAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the majority’s denial of Kulwant Kaur’s petition. Kaur admitted to the Immigration Judge that she lied. It is often impossible for asylum seekers to obtain documentary evidence. The integrity of our asylum system depends on asylum seekers’ truthfulness. It is not an abuse of discretion for the Board

710 F.Supp.2d 123 (2010) Amrit Pal SINGH, Plaintiff, v. Janet NAPOLITANO, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-499(RBW). United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 11, 2010. *126 Paul Shearman Allen, James R. Davis, Paul Shearman Allen & Associates, Washington, DC, Joseph Peter

MEMORANDUM ** Charanjit Singh appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for trafficking in contraband tobacco and aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2342. Pursuant to An-*663ders v. California, 386 U.S. 73

MEMORANDUM ** Tirath Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the *496agency’s continuous physical presence determinat

MEMORANDUM *** Nirbhair Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.

MEMORANDUM ** Sandeep Randhawa Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for a waiver of the requirement to file a joint petition with his former wife to remove the conditional basis of his lawful permanent resident status. We have

*559MEMORANDUM ** Gurprit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §