FAQs about property-tax relief (York Daily Record)
May 6, 2007 — Some residents might be surprised to learn they could be paying more in income tax than they will receive in property-tax savings under a tax relief plan that will be on the ballot in May.
Read more detail on Legal News Directory – Intellectual Property
Legal notice about the FAQs about property-tax relief (York Daily Record)
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to FAQs about property-tax relief (York Daily Record)?
- Complexity, philosophy thwarted property tax relief (The Daily Comet)
- Fire & Rescue Association honors Elder, Romanchik (The Daily Record)
- Labor market growth slows (Daily Record)
- Copyright Transfers for New York Businesses and Others-Don't Forget: Record the Assignment
- Know about the mortgage forgiveness debt relief act
- FAQs About Child Support in California
- FAQs about Redirect Examination
- Is there anything I can do about getting rid of a felony conviction on my record?
- Whistleblowing on a Healthcare Provider About Electronic Health Record Privacy Violations
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm