Suffolk New York Application to Restore to Calendar — Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal to Calendar is a legal process that involves petitioning the court to reinstate a case that was adjourned with the contemplation of dismissal (ACD) back onto the court's calendar. This application is relevant for individuals or parties seeking to revive a case that was previously adjourned with the possibility of dismissal. In Suffolk County, New York, there might be different types of applications to restore to calendar — adjourned in contemplation of dismissal. Some of these variations may include: 1. Criminal Cases: If a criminal case in Suffolk County was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, the defendant can file an application to restore the case to the court's calendar. This application allows the defendant to request the court to schedule the case for further proceedings instead of dismissing it. 2. Civil Cases: In civil cases, where a case was previously adjourned with contemplation of dismissal, the involved parties can file an application to restore the case to the court's calendar. This application serves the purpose of reviving the case so that it can proceed towards resolution, rather than being dismissed outright. 3. Traffic Violations: For traffic violations and infractions that were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, individuals may file an application to restore the case to the calendar. This process allows for the reopening of the case and the opportunity for the defendant to address the violation in court. The Suffolk New York Application to Restore to Calendar — Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal to Calendar is an important legal tool that allows individuals or parties involved in a legal matter to seek a second chance in court. By filing this application, the case can be reinstated onto the court's calendar, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and seek a fair resolution.
Suffolk New York Application To Restore Case Adjourned In Contemplation of Dismissal To Calendar
State:
New York
County:
Suffolk
Control #:
NY-10-8-A
Format:
PDF
Instant download
This website is not affiliated with any governmental entity
Public form
Description
This form is an official State of New York Family Court sample form, a detailed Application to Restore to Calendar - Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal to Calendar.
How to fill out Suffolk New York Application To Restore Case Adjourned In Contemplation Of Dismissal To Calendar?
If you’ve already used our service before, log in to your account and download the Suffolk New York Application to Restore to Calendar - Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal to Calendar on your device by clicking the Download button. Make sure your subscription is valid. If not, renew it in accordance with your payment plan.
If this is your first experience with our service, adhere to these simple actions to get your file:
- Make certain you’ve located the right document. Look through the description and use the Preview option, if available, to check if it meets your requirements. If it doesn’t fit you, utilize the Search tab above to get the appropriate one.
- Purchase the template. Click the Buy Now button and select a monthly or annual subscription plan.
- Register an account and make a payment. Utilize your credit card details or the PayPal option to complete the transaction.
- Obtain your Suffolk New York Application to Restore to Calendar - Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal to Calendar. Select the file format for your document and save it to your device.
- Fill out your sample. Print it out or take advantage of professional online editors to fill it out and sign it electronically.
You have regular access to every piece of paperwork you have purchased: you can find it in your profile within the My Forms menu whenever you need to reuse it again. Take advantage of the US Legal Forms service to quickly locate and save any template for your personal or professional needs!
Form popularity
Interesting Questions
More info
Thomas F. Whelan of Supreme. A personal interest arising out of a collective bargaining agreement is not a prohibited interest under the law (Stettine v.Matter was placed on the Court's calendar for April 29, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. Automate New York Court Forms with Document and Form Automation in AbacusLaw.
(Feb. 5, 2017) (DOJ)) and was approved. The Supreme Court (with the concurrence of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Alito (Dec. 22, 2006)) stated on January 26, 2017, that a “public employee” who is seeking “a change in an employer plan is not subject to the provisions of the Act. . . . If an issue arises, the Court will make a determination.” This includes an individual negotiating the employment terms of his/her own plan. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has previously held that an officer's union membership constitutes “fair notice.” (See “A Brief History of Worker Rights and Collective Bargaining,” NLRB Bulletin, Mar. 2017). The Supreme Court of the United States, by a vote of 10 to 4, held that “public employees” have the right to work under collective bargaining agreements in which the bargaining unit is composed of employees who are employed by the same organization (collectively), or “members” of such bargaining unit.
Disclaimer
The materials in this section are taken from public sources. We disclaim all representations or any warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, authenticity, reliability, accessibility, adequacy, or completeness of any data in this paragraph. Nevertheless, we make every effort to cite public sources deemed reliable and trustworthy.
(Feb. 5, 2017) (DOJ)) and was approved. The Supreme Court (with the concurrence of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Alito (Dec. 22, 2006)) stated on January 26, 2017, that a “public employee” who is seeking “a change in an employer plan is not subject to the provisions of the Act. . . . If an issue arises, the Court will make a determination.” This includes an individual negotiating the employment terms of his/her own plan. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has previously held that an officer's union membership constitutes “fair notice.” (See “A Brief History of Worker Rights and Collective Bargaining,” NLRB Bulletin, Mar. 2017). The Supreme Court of the United States, by a vote of 10 to 4, held that “public employees” have the right to work under collective bargaining agreements in which the bargaining unit is composed of employees who are employed by the same organization (collectively), or “members” of such bargaining unit.
Disclaimer
The materials in this section are taken from public sources. We disclaim all representations or any warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, authenticity, reliability, accessibility, adequacy, or completeness of any data in this paragraph. Nevertheless, we make every effort to cite public sources deemed reliable and trustworthy.