Case law

New York City Department of Sanitation v. MacDonald

87 N.Y.2d 650 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1996

[Troy Teachers Assn.], 69 NY2d 905, 906 , citing Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg], 46 NY2d 623, 631 ; see also, Board of Educ. v Areman, 41 NY2d 527, 530-531 ). … Indeed, in many instances a matter may partake of both categories, requiring a balancing of the interests involved” (Matter of Levitt v Board of Collective Bargaining, 79 NY2d, at 127 , supra).

Lombardo v. Stoke

18 N.Y.2d 394 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1966

In connection with this litigation — which was ultimately resolved in SCAD’s favor (see Matter of Board of Higher Educ. v. … S., at pp. 574-575; see Sheridan v. Crisona, 14 N Y 2d 108, supra; Duffy v. Kipers, 26 A D 2d 127; Smith v. Helbraun, 21 A D 2d 830; Manceri v. City of New York, 12 A D 2d 895; Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.

People ex rel. Petite v. Follete

24 N.Y.2d 60 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1969

Rainone v. Murphy (1 N Y 2d 367) has been regarded as the controlling decision in this area. … Pro., §§ 669, 669-b) and the Constitution of the United States (Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374 ).

The People v. . Carpenter

24 N.Y. 86 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1861

These views received the sanction of this court in the case of The People v. Draper ( 15 N. Y., 582 ). … In Smith v.

Cordero v. Corbisiero

80 N.Y.2d 771 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1992

(cf., National Labor Relations Bd. v Bell Aerospace Co., 416 US 267, 290-295 ; Securities Comma, v Chenery Corp., 332 US 194, 202 ). … The Saratoga policy, according to the Board’s brief on appeal, applies "to every jockey * * * who elect[s] to race at Saratoga, commit[s] an infraction there, and unsuccessfully appeal[s] to the Board.”

Brennan v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

303 N.Y. 411 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1952

It is entirely clear, of course, that the parties must in the first instance proceed before the Board. (See, e.g., Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., supra, 339 U. S. 239 ; Order of Conductors v. Pitney, supra, 326 U. … In other words, the action taken by the Board did not render its jurisdiction one whit less exclusive. (Cf. New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Comn. v. Ward, 182 F. 2d 654, 656 ; Hayes v. Union Pac. R.

Grossman v. Baumgartner

17 N.Y.2d 345 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1966

People v. Lewis, 295 N. Y. 42 ; People v. Sampsell, 248 N. Y. 157 .) … (See, e.g., Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540, 550 ; Matter of Davis v. Board of Elections, 5 N Y 2d 66, 70; Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 302 N. Y. 226, 238 .)

Bland v. Gellman, Brydges & Schroff

21 N.Y.3d 1061 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 12, 2013

Harris v. Mechanicville Central School District

45 N.Y.2d 279 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 1978

There being substantial, albeit contested, evidence to support each finding of insubordination, to that extent the board’s determination is beyond review (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 230). … Since, however, in this case this court will not presume to determine the precise sanction to be imposed, remittal is appropriate (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233-234, supra).

Claim of Lehsten v. NACM-Upstate New York

93 N.Y.2d 368 · New York Court of Appeals · May 6, 1999

The application to the full Board for discretionary review, we note, *374 does not toll the 30-day limitation period for taking an appeal to the Appellate Division (see, Matter of Dukes v Capitol Formation, 213 AD2d 756 , … lv dismissed 86 NY2d 810 , 87 NY2d 891 ; Matter of Roscoe v New York Tel.

Marx v. Akers

88 N.Y.2d 189 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1996

v Perot, 539 A2d 180, 189 ). … whenever a majority of the board members who approved the transaction are named as defendants (see, Miller v Schreyer, 200 AD2d 492 ; Curreri v Verni, 156 AD2d 420 ; MacKay v Pierce, 86 AD2d 655 ; Joseph v Amrep Corp., 59

Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Boland

282 N.Y. 256 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1940

(Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U. S. 197, 229 .) The same test is applied in trials before a court and jury. … Evidence which is sufficient to require the court to submit a question of fact to a jury is sufficient to support a finding by the administrative board. (Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian E. & S.

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

92 N.Y.2d 835 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1998

Robinson v. Donohue

16 N.Y.2d 887 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1965

Schwartz v. Dennison

9 N.Y.3d 918 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2007

Leo v. Barnett

41 N.Y. 879 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1977

MATTER OF SOMMER v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.

61 N.Y.2d 973 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1984

Terrel v. . Wheeler

123 N.Y. 76 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1890

(Clementi v. Jackson, 92 N. Y. 591 ; Ensign v. Barse, 107 id. 329 ; Williams v. City of Albany, 122 U. S. 154 .) But that act did not entirely relieve the city of Brooklyn from its difficulties. … (Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183 .)

Cole v. . the State of New York

102 N.Y. 48 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1886

They all relate to the captain of the port and harbor-masters of the port of New York, and if the act had borne that title it would be unobjectionable under the decision of this court in Board of Water Commissioners v. … Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238 .) The award of the board of claims should be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Danfoeth, J., dissenting. Award affirmed. * 101 N. Y. 9 .

In re Charles A. Field Delivery Service, Inc.

66 N.Y.2d 516 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1985

Co. v Public Serv. … the Board, as supported by substantial evidence.