Case law

People White v. . Bd. of Aldermen of the City of Buffalo

157 N.Y. 673 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1898

Pratter v. Lascoff

261 N.Y. 509 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1933

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Liggett Co. v. Baldridge ( 278 U. S. 105 ). No opinion. Concur: Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ.

Claim of Brennan v. Village of Johnson City

20 N.Y.3d 998 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2013

Lindsley v. . Ferguson

49 N.Y. 623 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1872

The circumstance that the notes had previously been delivered to Brown, to be by him delivered to Lindsley, is not material. … (Lewis v. McMillen, 41 Barb., 420 ; Wheaton v. Baker, 14 id., 594; Masson v. Bovet, 1 Denio, 69; Tompkins v. Hyatt, 28 N.

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

29 N.Y.3d 1050 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2017

Sherman v. Oswald

25 N.Y.2d 953 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1969

Claim of Hrynkiw v. Davis

20 N.Y.2d 768 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1967

Claim of Martin v. Hoppl

14 N.Y.2d 647 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1964

Claim of Avery v. City or Middletown

33 N.Y.2d 771 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1973

Order reversed, with costs against the respondent city, on the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division, the determination of the Workmen’s Compensation Board vacated, and the Referee’s decision reinstated.

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

19 N.Y.3d 1098 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2012

Claim of Wilson v. Detroit Hockey Club, Inc.

66 N.Y.2d 848 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 14, 1985

Adams v. Davidson

6 N.Y. 309 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1851

This declaration of Brown, although objected to, was competent evidence, he having remained in possession of the goods up to and after the time the declaration was made. ( Willies v. Farly, 3 Carr. & Payne, 395.) … (Van Wyck v. Pine, 2 Hill, 668 .)

People v. Smith

2 N.Y. 8 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 2004

Relying on this Court’s recent decision in People v Brown ( 97 NY2d 500 [2002]), defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the introduction of the undercover’s expert testimony on street-level … Trial of this matter was held in October 1999, before our Brown decision. .

Greystone Mgmt. Corp. v. Conciliation & Appeals Bd. of the City of New York

62 N.Y.2d 763 · New York Court of Appeals · May 1, 1984

It cannot be said that the Appellate Division abused its discretion in refusing to grant declaratory relief in this case (Bower & Gardner v Evans, 60 NY2d 781 ).

In the Matter of Green v. Kimber Manufacturing, Inc.

8 N.Y.3d 893 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2007

Claim of Jackson v. Frederick Richman & Co.

15 N.Y.2d 877 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 1965

Since, as the Workmen’s Compensation Board indicated, the assault upon the claimant by the individual Rich-man was “ tantamount ” to an assault by his “ employer ”, the *879 claim which resulted in the settlement was not … The order of the Appellate Division should, therefore, be reversed and the award of the board reinstated.

Danaher v. . City of Brooklyn

119 N.Y. 241 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1890

(People v. Albany, 11 Wend. 539 ; Nevins v. City of Peoria, 41 Ill. 502 ; Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 id. 337.) … Cas.] 161), Charles v. Hinckley Local Board (52 L. J. [N. S.] 554), Brown v. Illius ( 27 Conn. 84 ), Ballard v. Tomlinson, L. R. [29 Ch. Div.] 115), are not in point.

Greene v. . Knox

175 N.Y. 432 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1903

(Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139 ; Osterhoudt v. Board of Supervisors, 98 N. Y. 239 .) … McLaughlin v. Police Commissioners ( 174 N.

Matter of Rosbar Co. v. Bd. of Appeals of the City of Long Beach

53 N.Y.2d 623 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1981

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the board of appeals that there had been such a change in use of the subject premises as to cause it to lose its nonconforming status.

People v. Salcedo

92 N.Y.2d 1019 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1998

The mere fact that defendant’s possession of the weapon was continuous is not determinative under this Court’s precedents (see, People v Brown, 80 NY2d 361 ; People v Okafore, 72 NY2d 81 ). … Here, as in Brown , “[t]he act of the possessory crime, though *1022 continuing, is distinct for consecutive sentencing purposes from the discrete act of’ shooting the victim (People v Brown, supra, at 364).