Case law

Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment

58 N.Y.2d 713 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1982

Y. v State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment ( 58 NY2d 710 [decided herewith]).

Board of Education of Cattaraugus Central School v. Cattaraugus Teacher's Ass'n

55 N.Y.2d 951 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 1982

People ex rel. Quinones v. New York State Board of Parole

66 N.Y.2d 748 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1985

Tedeschi v. Wagner College

49 N.Y.2d 652 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 1980

The courts of this State have consistently recognized the right to such relief (Browne v Hibbets, 290 NY 459 ; Polin v Kaplan, 257 NY 277 ; Simons v Berry, 240 NY 463 ; People ex rel. Deverell v Musical Mut. … The situation is further confused *660 by the facts that at least in part the association law under discussion is stated in terms of contract (Browne v Hibbets, supra, at p 466 ; Polin v Kaplan, supra, at p 282 ), and that

Weiss v. Square

309 N.Y. 52 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1955

(Matter of Brown v. Towns of Gates & Chili, 266 App. Div. 640 , affd. 292 N. Y. 663 .) … The determinations of the Workmen’s Compensation Board are final and conclusive upon the parties only as to issues within its jurisdiction. (Ogino v. Black, 304 N. Y. 872 .)

Louderback v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York

244 N.Y. 511 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1926

Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment

70 N.Y.2d 722 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1987

First National Bank of Ossining v. Board of Assessors of Ossining

182 N.Y. 460 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1905

Gallatin National Bank v. Commissioners of Taxes, ( 67 N. Y. 516 ). … Bank v. Commissioners of Taxes, 69 N. Y. 91 ; People ex rel. Union Trust Co. v. Coleman, 126 ib. 433; People ex rel. Equitable Gaslight Co. v. Barker, 144 ib. 94.)

Board of Managers of Alfred Condominium v. Carol Management, Inc.

87 N.Y.2d 942 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1996

PEOPLE EX REL. BORRELL v. New York State Board of Parole

18 N.Y.3d 904 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2012

BORRELL, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE, Respondent. Motion No: 2012-28. Court of Appeals of New York. Submitted January 9, 2012. Decided February 14, 2012.

International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

34 N.Y.2d 791 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1974

People Ex Rel. Joline v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

212 N.Y. 607 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1914

People Ex Rel. Van Hise v. Board of Police Commissioners

126 N.Y. 623 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1891

Campbell v. Hannan ( 56 Hun, 469 ), adopted by this court upon the affirmance of the judgment in that case. All concur. Order affirmed. '

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Westchester Movers, Inc.

2 N.Y.2d 856 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1957

Matter of O'Rafferty v. New York State Board of Parole

297 N.Y. 804 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 1948

Dowd v. Board of Education of City of New York

282 N.Y. 539 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1939

Brahdy v. Board of Education of City of New York

275 N.Y. 607 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1937

People ex rel. Van Hise v. Board of Police Com'rs

36 N.Y. St. Rep. 1012 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1891

Campbell v. Hannan, 56 Hun, 469 ; 31 N. Y. State Rep., 602, which was adopted in this court upon the affirmance of the judgment in this court. All concur. Affirming 34 N. Y. State Rep., 193.

People Ex Rel. J.B. Lyon Co. v. . McDonough

173 N.Y. 181 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 1903

Among others, it cites as sustaining that doctrine the following cases: Smith v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. ( 10 N. Y. 504 ); Brady v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y. ( 20 N. Y. 312 ); Brown v. Mayor, etc., *187 of N. Y. ( 63 N. … Wells v.

Shiseido Cosmetics (America) , Ltd. v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

52 N.Y.2d 916 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 1981

We agree, and for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division, that there is not sufficient evidence on the record considered as a whole to support the determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board that respondent