Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.22s
Claim of Stewart v. Devon Realty Corp.
12 N.Y.2d 1005 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1963
Order affirmed, with costs to respondent Workmen’s Compensation Board; no opinion. Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Burke, Foster and Scileppi. … Judge Van Voorhis dissents and votes to reverse and to dismiss the claim upon the ground that there is no substantial evidence to support the determination of the board.
Cited 0 timesPublishedClaim of Carpino v. Treasure Chest Restaurant
65 N.Y. 782 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1985
500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, with costs to appellants, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Third Department, with directions to remand to the Workers’ Compensation Board
Cited 0 timesPublished6 N.Y.3d 273 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2006
Finally, whether an employer adequately preserved its right to a future offset is a factual issue for the Board (Matter of Whitcomb v Xerox Corp., 246 AD2d 947 [3d Dept 1998]). … Where such evidence exists, the Board’s decision may not be disturbed (Matter of Pfeffer v Parkside Caterers, 42 NY2d 59, 60 [1977]).
Cited 21 timesPublishedMatter of Zamora v. New York Neurologic Associates
17 N.Y.3d 834 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2011
Cited 1 timesPublished44 N.Y. 717 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1978
Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution (McGinigle v Town of Greenburgh
Cited 0 timesPublishedClaim of Maher v. Agawan Aircraft Products
18 N.Y.2d 807 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 1966
Cited 0 timesPublished11 N.Y.2d 849 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1962
Cited 0 timesPublished144 N.Y. 104 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1894
(De Peyster v. Hasbrouck, 11 N. Y. 582 ; Payne v. Wilson, 74 id. 348; Coman v. Lakey, 80 id. 345; Husted v. Ingraham, 75 id. 251; Perry v. Board of Missions, 102 id. 99; Chase v. Peck, 21 id. 581; Haverly v. … Becker, 4 id. 169; Glacken v. Brown, 39 Hun, 294 ; Lanning v. Tompkins, 45 Barb. 308 ; Matter of Howe, 1 Paige, 125 ; Smith v. Smith, 125 N. Y. 224 ; Hoag v. Town of Greenwich, 133 id. 152.)
Cited 59 timesPublished56 N.Y.2d 513 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 1982
We *515 would only add that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his refusal to accept corrective medical treatment, including surgery, found by the medical board to constitute proper treatment in this case, should be
Cited 11 timesPublished18 N.Y.2d 792 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1966
Our decision in Matter of Battista v. Power (16 N Y 2d 198) overruled Matter of Belford v. Board of Elections of Nassau County ( 306 N. Y. 70 ).
Cited 12 timesPublishedBD. OF EDUC. OF BLOOMFIELD CENT. SCH. DIST. v. Christa Constr., Inc.
80 N.Y.2d 1031 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1992
Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp., 78 NY2d 88, 93 ). While arbitration may be challenged on public policy grounds (Hirsch v Hirsch, 37 NY2d 312, 315 ), that is a limited *1033 exception. … Union Free School Dist. v Port Wash. Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d 411, 418 ; see also, Matter of Board of Educ. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 75 NY2d 660 ).
Cited 8 timesPublished6 N.Y. 420 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1853
If this be so, then unless we are prepared to reject the authority of Brown v. Brown ( 6 How. Pr. … v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedWoods v. New York State Thruway Authority
19 N.Y.3d 1086 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2012
Cited 0 timesPublished20 N.Y.3d 540 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2013
In Matter of Beck-Nichols v Bianco: Judgment reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed. In Matter of Adrian v Board of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of Niagara Falls: Order affirmed, with costs. … In Matter of Luchey v Board of Educ. of City Sch.
Cited 40 timesPublished11 N.Y.3d 416 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 2008
As the Appellate Division pointed out, we have referred to provisions governing the age of children in child pornography statutes as “victim age provisions” (Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State … ]; Matter of New York State Bd. of Examiners of Sex Offenders v Ransom, 249 AD2d 891, 892 [4th Dept 1998] [“The Board . . . serves only in an advisory capacity that is similar to the role served by a probation department
Cited 272 timesPublishedEvansville National Bank v. Kaufmann
93 N.Y. 273 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1883
(Gates v. McKee, supra; Church v. Brown, 21 N. Y. 315 ; Douglass v. Howland, 24 Wend. 35 ; Leonard v. Vredenburgh, supra; Rogers v. Kneeland, 10 Wend. 218 .) The cases of Brewster v. Silence ( 8 N. … (Union Bank v. Coster, supra; Church v. Brown, supra; Birckhead v. Brown, supra.)
Cited 81 timesPublished96 N.Y. 369 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1884
The plaintiff was a dealer in brown stone and Chave desired to purchase them of him to perform his contract. … (Cook v. Satterlee, 6 Cow. 108 ; Seacord v. Burling, 5 Denio, 444 ; Van Wagner v. Terrett, 27 Barb. 181 ; Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y. 426 .)
Cited 4 timesPublishedClaim of Namanowich v. En Operating Corp.
17 N.Y.2d 642 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1966
Order affirmed, with costs to respondent Workmen’s Compensation Board; no opinion. Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Keating.
Cited 1 timesPublished29 N.Y.2d 451 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1972
Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 260 App. Div. 9 ; Reynolds v. Village of Ossining, 102 App. Div. 298 ; People ex rel. Sherrill v. Guggenheimer, 47 App. … Matter of O’Hara v. Harwood, 251 App. Div. 612 ; Rockefeller v. Taylor, 69 App. Div. 176 , supra-, People ex rel. McMillen v. Vanderpoel, 35 App. Div. 73 ; Adee v. Arnow, 91 Hun 329 , supra.)
Cited 70 timesPublished61 N.Y.2d 1008 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1984
In each case the facts must be examined to determine the nature of the material placed before the jury and the likelihood that prejudice would be engendered” (People v Brown, 48 NY2d 388, 394 ; see People v Pickett, 61 NY2d … Brown, supra, at p 393 ).
Cited 37 timesPublished
Ask Donna