 |
Stephen B. Kaufman is a lawyer and former Democratic City Councilman and New York State Assemblyman from the Bronx. In 2004, he ran unsuccessfully for the New York State Senate.
|
Stephen B. Kaufman is a lawyer and former Democratic City Councilman and New York State Assemblyman from the Bronx. In 2004, he ran unsuccessfully for the New York State Senate.
The New York Supreme Court (Appellate Division) summarized Kaufman's fraud in this way:
In the early summer of 1975, it had been discovered that New York City Councilman, Stephen Kaufman, had deceived the residents of Co-op City by his duplicitous conduct involving the rent strike. He was the only elected public official living in Co-op City but he became unelectable because of his rent strike duplicity. His actions were defended by the regular Democratic Club leadership in the district who were, at best, considered lukewarm in their support of the rent strike. There were regular and reform factions splitting the democratic support outside of Co-op City in the summer, fall and early winter months of 1975-76. [1]
The opinion criticizing Kaufman was authored by Justice Ann T. Mikoll, and it was signed by three other justices (Presiding Justice Greenblott, Justice Larkin, and Justice Herlihy). Another member of the court, Justice Kane, concurred, but only in the result. [2]
In April 2008, the New York City Campaign Finance Board found that Kaufman's campaign "violated the campaign finance program spending limit during the 2005 primary election campaign." [3] The Board fined Kaufman and his campaign.
Kaufman appealed to the New York Supreme Court in 2009. He lost the appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the fine against him and his campaign. [4]
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA, is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.
Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a longstanding New York State statute requiring that to be eligible to vote in certain school district elections, an individual must either own or rent taxable real property within the school district, be the spouse of a property owner or lessor, or be the parent or guardian of a child attending a public school in the district. By a 5-to-3 vote, the court held that these voting requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Joseph Lawrence Alioto was an American politician who served as the 36th mayor of San Francisco, California, from 1968 to 1976.
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that groups could sue to challenge their inclusion on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations. The decision was fractured on its reasoning, with each of the Justices in the majority writing separate opinions.
Bifurcation is a judge's ability in law to divide a trial into two parts so as to render a judgment on a set of legal issues without looking at all aspects. Frequently, civil cases are bifurcated into separate liability and damages proceedings. Criminal trials are also often bifurcated into guilt and sentencing phases, especially in capital cases.
Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 80 N.Y.S.2d 575, aff'd, 87 N.Y.S.2d 430, was a copyright lawsuit, in which Russian composer Dmitry Shostakovich unsuccessfully sued a film's distributor, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, in New York court, for using musical works of his that had fallen into the public domain.
Burt Neuborne is the Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties at New York University School of Law and the founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice.
The Mitchell–Lama Housing Program is a non-subsidy governmental housing guarantee in the state of New York. It was sponsored by New York State Senator MacNeil Mitchell and Assemblyman Alfred Lama. It was signed into law in 1955 as The Limited-Profit Housing Companies Act.
Noach Dear was an American attorney, politician, and jurist who served as a New York Supreme Court judge. Dear was elected in 2008 as a civil court judge, in 2010 as an Acting Supreme Court Justice, and in 2015 for a 15-year term as a Permanent Justice on the New York Supreme Court. Prior to his appointment, he served as a member of the New York City Council from 1983 to 2001. He died during the COVID-19 pandemic due to complications of COVID-19.
Pando v. Fernandez, 127 Misc.2d 224, is a New York case that arose when Christopher Pando, a deeply religious minor, sought to impose a constructive trust on the proceeds of a winning $2.8 million ticket that he purchased with Dasyi Fernandez's money. Pando alleged that Mrs. Fernandez agreed to share the prize money equally with him if he prayed to a saint to cause the numbers he picked for her to be the winning numbers. At the time that Pando purchased the ticket, Mrs. Fernandez was 38 and the mother of three children on welfare. Christopher Pando was 16 and was a friend of her son. Mrs. Fernandez denied that she ever asked Pando to buy the tickets or pick the numbers, and also denied the fact that she offered to share her money with him.
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 86 NW 2d 689 is an American contract law case. It concerns the distinction between an offer and an invitation to offer. The case held that a clear, definite, explicit and non-negotiable advertisement constitutes an offer, acceptance of which creates a binding contract. Furthermore, it held that an advertisement which did not clarify the terms of its bargains, such as with fine print, could not then be modified with arbitrary house rules.
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Jiggetts case established New York City's Jiggetts housing assistance program, which was ultimately replaced by the Family Eviction Prevention Supplement in 2005.
Suitable age and discretion is both a legal definition of maturity, and an alternate method of service of process by which a process server can leave a summons, subpoena, or complaint with a person living at the residence of the defendant.
Cunningham v. Cunningham, 99 N.E. 845, was a case heard by the New York Court of Appeals which allowed the annulment of a marriage that took place in New Jersey, where the bride had been below the age of consent in both states.
Andy King is an American politician. A Democrat, he is the former Council Member for the 12th district of the New York City Council, which includes the Baychester, Co-op City, Edenwald, Eastchester, Wakefield, and Williamsbridge sections of The Bronx. King and his wife, Neva Shillingford-King are the founders of the Bronx Youth Empowerment Program (YEP). King was expelled from the City Council on October 5, 2020.
Andrew Cohen is a Justice of the Bronx branch of the New York Supreme Court. He is a Democrat. He was previously the councilmember for the 11th district of the New York City Council, resigning in 2020, with Eric Dinowitz winning the special election to succeed him. The district includes Bedford Park, Kingsbridge, Norwood, Riverdale, Van Cortlandt Village, Wakefield, and Woodlawn Heights in The Bronx.
Alan Hochberg is an American lawyer and politician from New York.
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of limits on political speech in a polling place venue. The case challenged a century-old Minnesota law that prevents voters from wearing clothing or items considered political while voting. While the Supreme Court previously affirmed that political campaigning near polling places may be restricted, the Minnesota law was challenged on being overbroad and violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. The case's decision was issued on June 14, 2018, with the Court finding 7–2 that the Minnesota law was overbroad of what could be considered "political" speech, violating free speech rights and deemed unconstitutional.
 | This article about a member of the New York State Assembly is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |