Case law

Milton v. . Hudson River Steamboat Co.

37 N.Y. 210 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1867

Co., 35 N.Y. 75 ; Ernst v. Hudson R.R.R., id. 9; Deyo v. N.Y. Central, 34 id. 9; Brown v. The same, id. 404; Tonawanda R.R. Co . v. Munger, 4 id. 349; S.C., 5 Denio, 255 ; Railroad. Co . v. Aspell, 23 Penn. 147 .) … In that case the plaintiff put on board the defendants' barge, lime to be transported from the Medway to London.

Jones v. . Barlow

62 N.Y. 202 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1875

Middleton, 1 Wilson, 125 ; Woodgate v. Knatchbull, 2 T. R., 148-154; Bellasis v. Burbriche, 1 Ld. Ray., 170-172; Ward v. Snell, 1 Hy. Blk., 10.) … (Thomas v. Weed, 14 J. R., 255; Brown v. Genung, 1 Wend., 115 , which were decisions upon a statute in some respects similar.)

Claim of Weinstein v. Apex Dress Co.

25 N.Y.2d 947 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1969

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs and the claim before the Workmen’s Compensation Board dismissed. … Guide-Kalkhoff-Burr, 12 A D 2d 554, affd. 10 N Y 2d 857; Matter of Santacroce v. 40 W. 20th St., 9 AD 2d 985 , affd. 10 N Y 2d 855; see, also, Matter of Nicotera v.

Donovan v. . B'd of Education of City of N.Y.

85 N.Y. 117 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1881

The act defined the powers of the board and of the ward trustees, and declared that for the purposes of the act, 'the board “ shall possess the powers and privileges of a corporation.” (§ 2, sub. 8.) … But this did not make them the servants dr agents of the board which appointed them. Their general authority and their power to make repairs, was not derived from the defendant but from the law. In Maxmilian v.

People v. Billups

2026 NY Slip Op 01589 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2026

Three such scenarios were considered by the Court one year later in People v Brown , where this Court addressed "whether a sentence imposed for 'simple' knowing, unlawful possession of a loaded weapon (i.e., without any intent … People v Graham , 215 AD3d 998 , 1010 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Michel , 144 AD3d 948, 949 [2d Dept 2016]), the analysis in Brown establishes that this approach is not applicable where only simple possession is involved.

Claim of Raff v. Upson Co.

54 N.Y.2d 661 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1981

. *663 There having been no claim for a new injury in 1966, the board’s decision was erroneous as a matter of law. Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Weintraub v. Miller

11 N.Y.2d 860 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1962

People ex rel. Osborn v. Gilon

38 N.Y. St. Rep. 1011 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1891

People v. Fischer

53 N.Y.2d 178 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1981

Defendant was asked whether Abe Brown had told him in words or substance that a fellow law assistant whom *182 Brown identified as his cousin was responsible for a particular decision (allegedly favorable to defendant’s client … Ianniello, 36 NY2d 137, 142 ; People v Ianniello, 21 NY2d 418, 423, 427 ).

Claim of Groth v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

9 N.Y.3d 1000 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2007

Claim of Meachem v. New York Central Railroad

8 N.Y.2d 293 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1960

But Parchefsky simply applies to workmen’s compensation law the old rule (see Milks v. McIver, 264 N. … The board, however, made a finding of fact that the employer ‘ ‘ has waived and is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.”

People v. Pinckney

32 N.Y. 724 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1865

Brown, J., dissenting. The defendants’ appeal in this action presents no questions which have not already been determined by the judgment of this court. … The leading opinion in The People v. Draper ( 15 N.

Vaughn v. Bushwick Iron & Steel

9 N.Y.2d 727 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 1961

Knight v. Amelkin

68 N.Y.2d 975 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1986

Inasmuch as a zoning board of appeals performs a quasi-judicial function when considering applications for variances and special exceptions (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 , 598-599, rearg denied 42 NY2d 910 ; Holy … Spirit Assn. v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 190 , lv denied 63 NY2d 603 ), and completely lacks legislative power (2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 23.59, at 251; 6 Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls § 43.01 [2] [b]

Cerami v. Rochester City School District

74 N.Y.2d 871 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1989

Claim of Santacroce v. 40 W. 20th Street, Inc.

10 N.Y.2d 855 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1961

Fisher v. Becker

26 N.Y.2d 938 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1970

Bland v. Gellman, Brydges & Schroff

21 N.Y.3d 920 · New York Court of Appeals · May 2, 2013

Rivera v. Smith

63 N.Y.2d 501 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1984

These provisions of New York law manifest the importance which our State attaches to the free exercise of religious beliefs, a liberty interest which has been called a “preferred right” (Matter of Brown v McGinnis, 10 NY2d … Notwithstanding the importance of this right, it does not prevent the imposition of reasonable restrictions by prison officials (Matter of Shahid v Coughlin, 83 AD2d 8, 11-12 , affd on opn below 56 NY2d 987 ; Matter of Brown

City of Buffalo v. George Irish Paper Co.

26 N.Y.2d 869 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1970