ny pml sec 109 is unconstitutional. hint see ny const art 1 sec 3
ny pml sec 109 does not apply to suffolk otb because the races are without the state of ny snd the bet is made in ny
ny pml sec 109 is vague and indefinite because the term easter Sunday foes not specify one snd only one sunday in all years
Claude Solnik
Long Island Business News
2150 Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7348
Home > LI Confidential > Stop scratching on holidays
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
Lindenhurst students' activism
gets results. next project is to open nassau otb for those that wish to bet
Sunday, April 21, 2019
| Track Code | Track Name | Entry | Scratch | 1st Post ET | 1st Post Local | Time Zone | Stakes Race(s) | Stakes Grade | T.V. Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GG | GOLDEN GATE FIELDS | 48 | 24 | 3:45 PM | 12:45 PM | PDT | |||
| LS | LONE STAR PARK | 72 | 0 | 3:35 PM | 2:35 PM | CDT | |||
| SA | SANTA ANITA PARK | 72 | 24 | 3:30 PM | 12:30 PM | PDT | |||
| SUN | SUNLAND PARK | 168 | 0 | 2:30 PM | 12:30 PM | MDT | |||
| WO | WOODBINE | 72 | 48 |
The teens asked district officials why free feminine hygiene products are not in school bathrooms, as required by state law. The district responded quickly, saying dispensers will be in place by month's end.
Lindenhurst High School students Vanessa Igras, 16, left, and Brooklyn Ratel, 16, right, are leaders of a group of students who brought reform in the school district when they questioned why free feminine hygiene products were not provided in the girls' bathrooms at the district's middle and high schools. Photo Credit: Newsday/Alejandra Villa Loarca
Lindenhurst students' efforts and research about access to feminine hygiene products internationally is leading to reform in their own schools, with the district moving to put dispensers in bathrooms and bring the system into compliance with a new state law.
The students, part of the Global Youth Action Alliance, were prepping earlier this month for an upcoming "Disrupting Education" week at Lindenhurst High School when they came across the law, which took effect July 1 and requires schools to provide free access to the hygiene products.
"I was shocked that this was a law in the first place, because nobody ever heard of it," said junior Vanessa Igras,16. "And I am glad they are doing something about it now, but I don’t think it should have been like this in the first place."
Linda Flannelly, the high school’s assistant principal, and students in the youth alliance who are participating in the schoolwide forum on sustainable development questioned district officials, seeking an explanation as to why such products were only available at the nurses' offices. They asked that sanitary pads and tampons be provided in the bathrooms as soon as possible.
Lindenhurst district officials responded, crediting the students' initiative and saying the dispensers were ordered on March 12 and will be installed by month's end.
“While our goal in providing the items in the nurses' office was always with the intention of doing what was in the best interest of our female students, we
recognized, as a result of their expressed concern, that we were not meeting that goal and made the decision to place the order,” Superintendent Daniel Giordano said in a statement.
recognized, as a result of their expressed concern, that we were not meeting that goal and made the decision to place the order,” Superintendent Daniel Giordano said in a statement.
Under the new state legislation, "the district has worked to integrate these updated requirements into our buildings in the safest and most effective manner. … The well-being of our student body is our top priority," Giordano said.
The legislation, part of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's Women's Opportunity Agenda, states: “All elementary and secondary public schools in the state serving students in any grade from grade six through grade twelve shall provide feminine hygiene products in the restrooms of such school building or buildings. Such products shall be provided at no charge to students.”
do not forget it takes a woman and a lawyer to teach andrew cuomo
do not forget it takes a woman and a lawyer to teach andrew cuomo
Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, No. 16-622 (2d Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
WD filed suit against OGS, alleging that defendants violated its rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Constitution by denying WD's applications to participate as a food truck vendor in the Lunch Program based on its ethnic-slur branding. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, holding that defendants' action violated WD's equal protection rights and its rights under the New York State Constitution. In this case, it was undisputed that defendants denied WD's applications solely because of its ethnic-slur branding. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that this action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and, if not government speech or otherwise protected, was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court rejected defendants' argument that their actions were unobjectionable because they were either part of OGS's government speech or permissible regulation of a government contractor's speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment