Consol. Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm\u27n, 93 Misc. 2d 313, 402 N.Y.S.2d 551 (Sup. Ct. Albany County 1978)

Consol. Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm\u27n, 93 Misc. 2d 313, 402 N.Y.S.2d 551 (Sup. Ct. Albany County 1978) (PSC\u27s order banning utility from using bill inserts to promote utility\u27s position on controversial matters of public policy constituted an impermissibly vague restriction upon commercial speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments), rev\u27d, 63 A.D.2d 364, 407 N.Y.S.2d 735, aff\u27d, 47 N.Y.2d 94, 417 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1979), rev\u27d, 447 U.S. 530 (1980) (agreeing with Judge Miner\u27s holding that bill inserts ban was unconstitutional)

Intercommunity Center for Justice and Peace v. INS, 910 F. 2d 42 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1990

The Intercommunity Center for Justice and Peace ( ICJP ), an organization of forty-one Roman Catholic orders, appeals from an October 27, 1989 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.), dismissing the complaint in this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the complaint, the ICJP and six individual Roman Catholic nuns joined as plaintiffs alleged that their religious beliefs prevent them from complying with the employer verification and sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (1988) (the Act ). The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring that they are exempt from the Act and enjoining defendants from enforcing the Act as it applies to them on the ground that such enforcement would violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment. On appeal, the ICJP pursues the free exercise claim and also contends that, absent an explicit statement of intent by Congress, the Act may not be applied to ICJP members because it raises serious establishment clause questions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm

Hoffenberg v. CIR, 905 F. 2d 665 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1990

On October 10, 1985, the Commissioner sent a statutory Notice of Deficiency by certified mail to petitioner at the following address: Steven Hoffenberg c/o Jesse Vogel, Esq. 34 Paerdegat 10 Street Brooklyn, New York 11236 Petitioner admits that between 1982 and 1986 he resided at, received mail addressed to, and listed his address on tax returns as: Steven Hoffenberg, 34 Paerdegat, 10 Street, Brooklyn, New York 11236. Petitioner\u27s father has lived at that address for fifteen years and has often received mail for his son there. Petitioner had listed his address as c/o Jesse Vogel, Esq., 85 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, on his 1981 return. The Commissioner admits that he knew or should have known that the insertion of c/o Jesse Vogel, Esq. in the address used for the Notice of Deficiency was a mistake. The only issue on appeal is whether the addition of those words renders an otherwise correct address incorrect. 666*666 Relying on the Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual and the testimony of Eugene C. Hagburg, a former Assistant Postmaster General called by petitioner as an expert witness, the Tax Court concluded that [n]otwithstanding the insertion of the words `c/o Jesse Vogel, Esq.\u27 in the address on the notice of deficiency, the postal carrier would deliver the notice of deficiency to the 10 Street address. The Tax Court found that if delivery could not be completed, the carrier would leave delivery notices at the 10 Street address. The Tax Court further found that certified mail marked in care of another would be delivered to the first of the two persons named who may call for it. If not claimed within fifteen days after the second delivery notice, the Notice of Deficiency would be returned to the IRS. The Commissioner\u27s files contain no indication that the Notice was returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable. All Postal Service records reflecting delivery of certified mail in Brooklyn were destroyed subsequent to the filing of the petition in the Tax Court. The Tax Court rejected petitioner\u27s claim that he never received the Notice of Deficiency and determined that there was no convincing evidence that the notice was not delivered. Since petitioner did not file his petition within 90 days of the mailing of the Notice of Deficiency, his petition was dismissed as untimely

US v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 856 F. 2d 7 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1988

On these appeals, defendants-appellants City of Yonkers and Yonkers Community Development Agency (collectively, the City ) appeal from two orders entered January 30, 1987 and March 17, 1988 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sand, J.), which direct the City to provide funding for the construction of two new schools in accordance with the public school desegregation plan approved in that court\u27s prior School Remedy Order. Because the City\u27s objections to the construction of these schools clearly were encompassed in its prior appeal to this Court and present no new issues, we hold that their resolution has become the law of the case and decline to reconsider them. Therefore, we affirm the orders of the district court