Cases

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review a decision of the Defendant Commissioner denying Plaintiffs application for Social Security disability benefits. On February 4, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendations (Doc. #12), recommending that the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff

DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AND (2) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET Michael J. Newman, United States Magistrate Judge This Social Security disability benefits appeal is presently before the undersigned for disposition based upon the parties’ consent. Doc. 7. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) err

ORDER Honorable .Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation' issued by United States Magistrate Judge Eric J. Marko-vich. (Doc. 21.) Judge Markovich recommends the Court remand this matter to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for payment bf benefits. Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, to which Plaintiff replied. (D

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 13) THOMAS M. ROSE, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman (doc. 13), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPT

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #10) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #11) OVERRULED; JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, REVERSING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. AND REMANDING THE CAPTIONED CAUSE TO THE DEFENDANT

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #17) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. # 18) OVERRULED; JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF, AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; TERMINATION ENTRY WALTER HE

11 F.Supp.2d 235 (1998) William KNAPP, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 97-CV-0758. United States District Court, N.D. New York. July 10, 1998. *236 Legal Aid for Broome and Chenango, Inc., Binghamton, NY, for plaintiff; Kathleen M. Spann, of counsel. Thomas J. Maroney, U.S. A

Opinion by Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge GRABER. OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge: Pamela Keyser appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reve

399 F.Supp.2d 185 (2005) Teresa COLEGROVE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. No. 98-CV-6559L. United States District Court, W.D. New York. November 14, 2005. *186 *187 Mark M. McDonald, Bond and McDonald, P.C., Geneva, NY, for Plaintiff. Brian M. McCarthy, United

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FILED ON JANUARY 10, 2013; VACATING THE COMMISSIONER’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING; REMANDING PLAINTIFF’S CASE TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR PAYMENT OF CHILD’S SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME CONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND THIS DECISION AND ENTRY; AND TERMINATING THE CASE ON THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT

OPINION OF THE COURT SCHWARTZ, Senior District Judge. Ethel Burnett (“Burnett”), asserting error in the denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, has appealed the District Court’s order affirming the final decision of appellee, Commissioner of Soci

************************************************ 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

162 F.3d 1174 98 CJ C.A.R. 5286 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995,

Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Madison County (Humphreys, J.), entered November 10, 1998, which, inter alia, denied respondent’s motion to vacate the default judgment entered against her. *543This case arises out of the disputed custody of two brothers who, in December 1989, at the ages of four and six years, were adopted by

Lenk, J. Prior to 2006, G. L. c. 94C, § 27, provided criminal penalties for the possession, delivery, sale, or exchange of hypodermic needles without a prescription. In 2006, the Legislature amended the statute to regulate only the sale of such needles, thereby decriminalizing, inter alia, the possession of hypodermic needles. See St. 2006, c. 172, §§ 2, 3 (2006 act). <

*34MEMORANDUM & ORDER Joanna Seybert, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Plaintiff Maria Collazo (“Plaintiff’ or “Collazo”) commenced this action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000 et. seq. (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) in connection with discrimination and retaliation based

OPINION Scott, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal income tax for calendar years 1971 and 1972 of $1,133.25 and $3,503.18, respectively. The sole issue for decision is whether an amount received by petitioners from an annuity under the New York State Employees’ Retirement System equal to the interest earned on petitioners’ accumulated contribu

Opinion SWEET, District Judge. [[Image here]] *474[[Image here]] Plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft (“School-craft” or “Plaintiff’); Defendants Christopher Broschart, Timothy Caughey, Kurt Duncan, Elise Hanlon, Theodore Lauter-born, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson, Frederick Sawyer, The City Of New York, Timothy

OPINION OF THE COURT ADAMS, Circuit Judge. The principal question here is whether it was error to grant summary judgment on the ground that one injured by a defective machine may not recover from the corporation that purchased substantially all the assets of the manufacturer of the machine because the transaction was a sale of assets rather than a merger or consolidation. I.

Re: ECF Nos. 121, 133, 134 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Table of Contents I. Introduction... 1055 II. Procedural History.. .1056 III. Jurisdiction... 1056 IV. Facts... 1056 A. Arrest a