Case law

Oak Hill Country Club v. Town of Pittsford

264 N.Y. 133 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1934

(People v. Underhill, 144 N. Y. 316 .) The part of the road which narrowed to forty feet was in front of the Qak *137 Hill Country Club. … The respondent says that this provision does not apply because the Town Board did not have jurisdiction and that such fact may be shown collaterally at any time, citing People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. v.

Lang v. Kelly

21 N.Y.3d 972 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 2013

In a 6-6 decision, respondent Board of Trustees denied her application for accidental disability retirement benefits (Matter of City of New York v Schoeck, 294 NY 559, 568 [1945] [tie vote of the Board of Trustees will be … (Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, 62 NY2d 563, 568 [1984]; Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of Police Dept. of City of N.Y., Art.

Citroen Cars Corp. v. City of New York

30 N.Y.2d 300 · New York Court of Appeals · May 3, 1972

I, § 10, cl. 2; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 419). The issue is whether the importer had so altered its automobiles as to forfeit their immunity. … The breadth of the tax immunity was first propounded in Chief Justice Marshall’s celebrated opinion in Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheat. [25 U. S.] 419, supra).

In re the Buffalo Mutual Gas Light Co.

144 N.Y. 228 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1894

The order was not made until after the board had completed its business and finally adjourned. … (People ex rel. v. Supervisors of Ulster Co., 65 N. Y. 300 ; Matter of Hermance, 71 id. 484; Matter of the Catholic Protectory, 77 id. 342; Williams v. Supervisors of Wayne Co., 78 id. 561.)

Matter of Humphrey v. State Ins. Fund

298 N.Y. 327 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1949

(See Matter of Miller v. Kling, supra, p. 69 ; Matter of Friedel v. Board of Regents, 296 N. Y. 347, 352 ; Matter of Stanton v. Valentine, 293 N. Y. 836 .) … (Matter of Miller v. Kling, supra, p. 69 ; see, also, Matter of Epstein v. Board of Regents, 295 N. Y. 154, 157 ; Matter of Friedel v. Board of Regents, supra, p. 352.)

People Ex Rel. Goldschmidt v. . Bd. of Education

217 N.Y. 470 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1916

The by-laws of the board of education which authorized the appointment of the relator by the committee on supplies, subject to the confirmation of the board, and which further empowered the committee to conduct all trials … (Pickering v. Lomax, 145 U. S. 310 ; Cook v. Tullis, 85 U. S. [18 Wall.] 332; Catholic F. M. Society v. Oussani, 215 N. Y. 1 .)

Korn v. Gulotta

72 N.Y.2d 363 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1988

They rely on Saxton v Carey ( 44 NY2d 545 ) and Judge Breitel’s dissenting opinion in Hidley v Rockefeller ( 28 NY2d 439, 440 ). … v Mayor of City of N.

Claim of Van Horn v. County of Cayuga

8 N.Y.3d 1015 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2007

to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Third Department, with directions to remand to the Workers’ Compensation Board … for further proceedings consonant with this Court’s decision in Matter of LaCroix v Syracuse Exec.

Bacon v. Miller

247 N.Y. 311 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1928

The action of the Board if valid was in effect the act of the Legislature. (Village of Carthage v. Frederick, 122 N. Y. 268 .) … Y. 468 ; Darling v. Jersey City, 80 N. J. L. 514; affd., 84 N. J. L. 758; Eldridge v. Fawcett, 128 Wash. 615 .) The case of Anderson v.

Claim of McCarthy v. Alling Personnel Corp.

33 N.Y.2d 953 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1974

Order reversed, with costs, on the dissenting opinion by Presiding Justice Heblihy at the Appellate Division, and the determination of the Workmen’s' Compensation Board reinstated.

MATTER OF BUSH v. Salerno

51 N.Y.2d 95 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1980

Board of Educ., 259 NY 191, 197 ; East End Trust Co. v Otten, 255 NY 283, 286 ), this being especially so in this instance where it is apparent that the Legislature enacted the later statute to make 'the time limitations … Matter of Taylor v McNab ( 40 NY2d 821 ) has no bearing on a jurisdictional question, (2) that the State Board of Elections is a party to this proceeding, but has not seen fit to appear and argue (cf.

Matter of Krantz v. Conciliation & Appeals Bd. of the City of New York

57 N.Y.2d 915 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1982

Testa v. Ravitz

84 N.Y.2d 893 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1994

Under Election Law § 6-148, a valid nomination is a prerequisite to the creation of a vacancy (see, Matter of Di Lorenzo v Heffernan, 187 Misc 766 , affd 271 App Div 802 , affd 296 NY 687 ). … We also note that Supreme Court correctly concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to conduct its own canvass of the ballots and determine a winner before the Board of Elections has conducted its canvass (Matter of Larsen v Canary

Jackson v. Citizens Casualty Co.

277 N.Y. 385 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1938

Lord, as operator, and Brown & Kleinhenz, Inc., and Forbes Motor Agency, Inc., as owners. … Co. v. Smart, 267 U. S. 126 , affg. 236 N. Y. 577 ; 206 App. Div. 630 .)

Rosenshein v. Millspaugh

33 N.Y.2d 727 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1973

In first above-entitled proceeding: Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Special Term directing the Board of Elections to accept petitioner’s certificate of designation filed by the People United Party reinstated

Wilcox v. . McClellan

185 N.Y. 9 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1906

to the board of estimate and apportionment. … There is nothing in the Constitution of this state to prevent the legislature from providing for cumulative voting in such boards. It is a question of policy, not power. There is nothing in the case of Rathbone v.

Matter of New York Catholic Protectory

77 N.Y. 342 · New York Court of Appeals · May 20, 1879

Under the decisions of this court, in Chegaray v. Jenkins ( 5 N. Y., 376 ), and The Hational Bank of Chemung v. The City of Elmira (53 id., 49), the tax imposed upon the petitioners was clearly illegal. … The appellant however cites the cases of The Hudson City Savings Institution ( 5 Hun, 612 ), and In re Hermance et al. v. Board, of Supervisors of Ulster Co. ( 71 N.

Schwartz v. Lee

22 N.Y.2d 743 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1968

People Ex Rel. Hatzel v. . Hall

80 N.Y. 117 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1880

There are decisions in other States which hold in accordance with the views herein expressed: (State v. Fitzgerald, 44 Mo., 425 ; Hummer v. Hummer, 3 Greene [Iowa], 42; Wammack v. Holloway, 2 Ala. [K S.], 31; Murfree v. … Y., 281 ; Van Wormer v. The Mayor, 15 Wend., 262 .) Though the proceeding be before such a ; tribunal as that board, it is res adjudicata for all that were parties to it: (State v. Deliesseline, 1 McCord [So.

Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise

51 N.Y.2d 278 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1980

A unanimous Appellate Division reversed and annulled the Board’s determination. … Hence, under these circumstances, a remand to the Board is unnecessary.