Case law

Pavlic v. Haley

13 N.Y.2d 1111 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 9, 1964

Pooler v. Public Service Commission

43 N.Y.2d 750 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1977

Suffolk County Builders Ass'n v. County of Suffolk

46 N.Y.2d 613 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1979

Corp. v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Monroe, 49 AD2d 461, 464 ; 9 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [3d ed rev], §§ 26.27, 26.28). … Corp. v Board of Trustees, 49 AD2d 461 , supra).

People Ex Rel. Mitchell v. . Sohmer

209 N.Y. 151 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1913

Brown v. Wood *163 ruff ( 32 N. Y. 355 ). … Carson v.

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.

In the Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

6 N.Y.3d 768 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 2006

Honeoye Falls-Lima Central School District v. Honeoye Falls-Lima Education Ass'n

49 N.Y.2d 732 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1980

Port Washington Teachers Assn., 45 NY2d 411 ; Matter of Board of Educ. v United Federation of Teachers, 46 NY2d 1018 ). … Matter of Feinerman v Board of Coop.

McMoore v. Regan

40 N.Y.2d 1034 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 20, 1976

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte upon the ground that the issue and these matters have been rendered moot (see Solari v Vincent, 38 NY2d 835 ; Matter of Cummings v Regan, 36 NY2d 969 ).

Matter of Koch

257 N.Y. 318 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1931

(Toledo Traction, Light & Power Co. v. Smith, 205 Fed. Rep. 643, 646; Barton v. Fitzpatrick, 187 Ala. 273 ; State ex rel. Danforth v. Kuehn, 34 Wis. 229 ; Fells v. Katz, 256 N. Y. 67 ; Polin v. Kaplan, 257 N. … Board of Trade ( 121 Ill. 412, 421 ), which dealt with the expulsion of a member from the Chicago Board of Trade, it was held that all irregularities were waived by his appearance before the board of directors and the submission

Rye Psychiatric Hospital Center, Inc. v. Schoenholtz

66 N.Y.2d 333 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1985

(See, Model, Roland & Co. v Industrial Acoustics Co., 16 NY2d 703 .) … The sole New York authority relied upon by petitioners and the Appellate Division for the proposition that the size of the board of directors may be established by "custom, usage and acquiescence” is Thistlethwaite v Thistlethwaite

Kelly v. Merry

262 N.Y. 151 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1933

While it, or similar forms of contract, has been upheld in several States (Lang v. City of Cavalier, 59 N. D. 75 ; Mississippi Valley Power Co. v. Board of Improvement of Waterworks Dist. … (Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, supra; Baldwin v. City of Oswego, 1 Abb. Dec. 62; Hunt v. City of Utica, 18 N. Y. 442 ; Weston v. City of Syracuse, 158 N. Y. 274, 283 ; Kronsbein v. City of Rochester, 76 App. Div. 494 .)

In re the Claim of Fisher

36 N.Y.2d 146 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1975

Standard Dredging Corp. v. Murphy, 319 U. S. 306 .) … (See, e.g., Matter of Colton v. Berman, 21 N Y 2d 322, 334.) Questions of law, of course, may always be reviewed by an appellate court. (Matter of Van Teslaar [Levine], 35 N Y 2d 311, 317-318.)

Matter of Weber v. Town of Cheektowaga

284 N.Y. 377 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 1940

Under such circumstances, neither the Special Term nor the Appellate Division should have set aside the finding of the Town Board. If People ex rel. Gilson v. Gibbons ( 231 N. … Guiney v. Valentine ( 274 N. Y. 331 ) and Matter of Roge v. Valentine ( 280 N. Y. 268 ).

Breithut v. Tchrs.' Retire. Bd. C. of N.Y.

296 N.Y. 1031 · New York Court of Appeals · May 15, 1947

Leonard v. . Burr

18 N.Y. 96 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1858

The court cannot supply, what probably the testator would have done, if he had known the law when he framed the will. ( Pickering v. Langdon, 22 Maine, 428, 429; Chapman v. Brown, 3 Burr, 1634; Doo v. Brabant, 4 Durn. … Mortimer v. Frost (2 Simons, 274) and Mackworth v. Hinkman (2 Keen, 658) are similar to Jackson v. Brown, before stated.

Industrial Export & Import Corp. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp.

302 N.Y. 342 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1951

(Werfel v. Zivnostenska Banka, 287 N. Y. 91 ; and see Balee v. Hidalgo Co. Water Improvement. Dist. No. 4, 229 App. Div. 660 .) … In support of that argument defendant cites Crashley v. Press Pub. Co. ( 179 N. Y. 27 ), and Savage v. O’Neil ( 44 N. Y. 298 ). The plaintiff relies on Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby ( 222 U.

People v. . Sutherland

207 N.Y. 22 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 1912

(People v. Wood, 121 N. Y. 522 .) … (Board of Supervisors, Richmond Co., v. Ellis, 59 N. Y. 620 .)

People Ex Rel. Lester v. . Eno

176 N.Y. 513 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1903

Sims v. Bd. Fire Commrs., 73 N. Y. 437 .) … Gambling v. Cholwell, 6 Abb. Pr. 151 ; Plymouthv. County Commrs., 16 Gray, 341 ; People ex rel. Toohey v. Webb, 50 N. Y. St. Rep. 46.) The provisions of section 2134 (Code Civ.

Matter of Cohen v. Fields

298 N.Y. 235 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1948

V, § 6). In Matter of Fink v. Finegan ( 270 N. … Board of Examiners, 274 N. Y. 367 ; Matter of Cowen v. Reavy, 283 N. Y. 232 ). In the light of the constitutional principle so declared, we turn to the matters upon which our decision is sought.

Shulman v. Hunderfund

12 N.Y.3d 143 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2009

Actual malice must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence” (Bose Corp. v Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 US 485 , 511 n 30 [1984]; see also Freeman v Johnston, 84 NY2d 52, 56-57 [1994]). … The usual deference paid by courts to jury verdicts is inapplicable in cases subject to the New York Times Co. v Sullivan rule.