Case law

Cummings v. Town Board of North Castle

62 N.Y.2d 833 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1984

v Andrews, 23 Misc 2d 894, 900 ). … acted “solely upon grounds which as matter of law may not control the discretion” of the Board (Matter of Larkin Co. v Schwab, 242 NY, at p 335 ).

Matter of Brown v. United Services for Air, Inc.

298 N.Y. 901 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1949

Board of Education v. Valden Associates, Inc.

46 N.Y.2d 653 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1979

Absent any indication of overreaching or unconscionability, such provisions violate neither section 5-323 of the General Obligations Law nor any other public policy (see Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., 42 NY2d 153

King v. Saratoga County Board of Supervisors

89 N.Y.2d 341 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1996

Supreme Court dismissed the petition and the Appellate Division affirmed (Matter of Seymour v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 184 AD2d 101 [Seymour i]). … Starting 15 years ago in Matter of Tri-County Taxpayers Assn. v Town Bd. ( 55 NY2d 41 ), this Court underscored the importance of strict SEQRA compliance.

Bigelow v. Board of Trustees of Gouverneur

63 N.Y.2d 470 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1984

Powers, 45 NY2d 994 ; Matter of Bal v Murphy, 43 NY2d 762 ; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ,240). … Co. v State Liq. Auth., 61 NY2d 858 ; cf. Matter of von Wiegen, 63 NY2d 163 ).

Matter of Tompkins v. Board of Regents

299 N.Y. 469 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 1949

Matter of Bell v. Board of Regents, 295 N. Y. 101 .) … Board of Regents, 272 App. Div. 1086 ; Matter of Siegal v. Board of Regents, 270 App. Div. 783 ; Matter of Hutschnecker v. Board of Regents, 269 App. Div. 891 , affd. 295 N. Y. 558 ; Matter of Gilbert [Cole], 266 App.

Dauernheim, Inc. v. Town Board of Hempstead

33 N.Y.2d 468 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1974

The issue was ‘ ‘ whether the Zoning Board of Appeals abused its discretion, as a matter of law, in denying the petitioners’ application for an area variance ”. … Y. 113, 121 , supra; Walus v. Millington, 49 Misc 2d 104 .) If the action of the board be assailed as arbitrary, the burden is upon him who asserts it to establish the fact. (Stevens v.

Board of Education v. Arlington Teachers Ass'n

78 N.Y.2d 33 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1991

[Candor Teachers Assn.], 42 NY2d 266, 271 ; Matter of Cohoes City School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 NY2d 774, 777-778 ). In 1983, in Matter of Sweet Home Cent. School Dist. v Sweet Home Educ. … Teachers’ Assn. v Three Vil. Cent. School Dist., 128 AD2d 626, 627 ).

Lehigh Valley R.R. Co. v. . Canal Board

204 N.Y. 471 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1912

(Matter of Mahon v. Bd. of Education, 171 N. Y. 263 .) … The cases of Cole v. State of N. Y. ( 102 N. Y. 48 ) and O’Hara v. State of N. Y. ( 112 N. Y. 146 ) are clear authorities to this effect.

Syracuse Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Education

35 N.Y.2d 743 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1974

Order affirmed, with costs, in the following memorandum: One should construe the language in Board of Educ. of Town of Huntington v. … broad scope with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, limited by plain and clear, rather than express, prohibitions in the statute or decisional law (see, generally, Matter of West Irondequoit Teachers Assn. v.

F. J. Zeronda, Inc. v. Town Board

37 N.Y.2d 198 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1975

Co. v Ambro, 32 NY2d 610 ; Matter of Delaware Midland Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Westhampton Beach, 30 NY2d 487 ; Matter of Seifried v Town of Clarkstown, 16 NY2d 485 ; Matter of Shell Oil Co. v Farrington, 14 NY2d 490 … Co. v Ambro, 32 NY2d 610 , supra; Matter of Delaware Midland Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Westhampton Beach, 30 NY2d 487 supra; Matter of Seifried, v Town of Clarkstown, 16 NY2d 485 , supra; Matter of Shell Oil Co. v Farrington

People Ex Rel. Belden v. Contracting Board

27 N.Y. 378 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1863

Lynch, v. Mayor of New York, 25 Wend., 680, 686 ; 19 Johns., 259 ; Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. U. S., 272.) … (People v. Canal Board, 13 Barb., 450 , and cases cited.) The only legal right of the relator in such a case, if he could have any, would be to damages for refusing him the contract.

Matter of Friedel v. Board of Regents

296 N.Y. 347 · New York Court of Appeals · May 22, 1947

Board of Regents, supra; Matter of Miller v. Kling, 291 N. Y. 65, 69 ). … Board of Regents, supra) that the right to cross-examine is less when the hearing is before such a board than when it is before a court (see Matter of Greenebaum v. Bingham, 201 N. Y. 343, 347 ).

Matter of Gertum v. . Board of Supervisors

109 N.Y. 170 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1888

(Sec. 9, art. 8, and sec. 3, art. 3, present Constitution; People v. Morris, 13 Wend. 325 ; People v. Morrell, 21 id. 562.) … (People v. Garey, supra; People v. Morrell, 21 Wend. 563 .)

In Re Smith v. . Board of Supervisors

148 N.Y. 187 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1896

Bank v. Cromwell, 102 N. Y. 481 ; People ex rel. v. Richards, 99 N. Y. 620 ; People ex rel. v. Supervisors, 73 N. Y. 173, 175; People ex rel. v. Supervisors, 64 N. Y. 600 .) … (Newell v. People, 7 N. Y. 9 ; People v. Rathbone, 145 N. Y. 440 .)

Matter of Cherry v. Board of Regents

289 N.Y. 148 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1942

(See Brown v. University of State of New York, 242 App. Div. 85 .) … The reasons which dictated the decision in Brown v.

Planck v. Suny Board of Trustees

5 N.Y.3d 844 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2005

Matter of Jaffe v. Board of Education

265 N.Y. 160 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1934

The problem confronting the Board of Education, at least in its broad aspect, is obvious. … for those *165 of the two Boards, and it would be doing so without any data to guide it.

Silberfarb v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

60 N.Y.2d 979 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1983

Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 ). … It was for the board to weigh the conflicting evidence of motive and assess the credibility of the witnesses, not the Appellate Division (Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267 ).

Commerce Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors

88 N.Y.2d 724 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1996

Corp. v Board of Assessors, 143 AD2d 135, 138 ). … Whether a property owner’s agreement to pay the cleanup costs would affect the property’s value in a given case is a *731 factual matter for the assessment board (cf., Fjetland v Brown, 1990 WL 311252 , at *5 [Wash Bd Tax