Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.55s
Matter of Sokolowski v. Bank of America
261 N.Y. 57 · New York Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1933
15, subdivision 3-v. … (Marhoffer v. Marhoffer, 220 N. Y. 543 .)
Cited 10 timesPublishedMatter of Aj Clarke Mgmt. Corp. v. Conciliation & Appeals Bd. of the City of New York
58 N.Y.2d 1108 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1983
Cited 6 timesPublished291 N.Y. 430 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1943
(Matter of Andresen v. Rice, 277 N. Y. 271 .) It was practicable to conduct examinations for positions in the local police force in the city of Glens Falls. … Y. 491, 494 ; Matter of Hilsenrad v. Miller, 284 N. Y. 445 .)
Cited 6 timesPublishedClaim of Hilton v. Truss Systems, Inc.
56 N.Y.2d 877 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1982
Cited 17 timesPublishedCounty of Suffolk v. Water Power & Control Commission
269 N.Y. 158 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1935
Unger v. Kennedy, 207 N. Y. 533 ; Cleveland v. City of Watertown, 222 N. Y. 159 ; People ex rel. Doscher v. Sisson, 222 N. Y. 387 ; Matter of LaRocca v. Flynn, 257 N. Y. 5 .) … (Robertson v. Zimmermann, 268 N. Y. 52 .)
Cited 8 timesPublished247 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.
Cited 25 timesPublishedGoodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York
80 N.Y.2d 366 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1992
the use, development and improvement of city land” (1975 NY City Charter §67 [4]; see, Matter of Waybro Corp. v Board of Estimate, 67 NY2d 349, 355 [final approval authority in City’s ULURP process vested in the Board of … Walentas v. Lipper, 636 F.Supp. 331, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)” (Walentas v Lipper, 862 F2d, at 419-420, supra).
Cited 87 timesPublished15 N.Y. 532 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1857
Foster's case (11 Coke, 59); Child v. Hudson Bay Company (2 P. Wms., 209); Cohen v. Hoff ( 3 Brev., 500 , 502, 504); Stradling v. Morgan ( Plowd., 206); United States v. … All the judges, except BROWN and COMSTOCK, concurring, Judgment affirmed.
Cited 202 timesPublishedDouglass v. Merchants' Insurance
118 N.Y. 484 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1890
(Huntingdon v. Claffin, 38 N. Y. 182 ; Vail v. Jersey Little Falls M'f'g Co., 32 Barb. 564 ; Ranck v. Albright, 36 Penn. St. 367; Tatterson v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 106 Mass. 56 .) … In Soldiers’ Home v.
Cited 20 timesPublishedPeople ex rel. Clemente v. Warden of Auburn Prison
9 N.Y.2d 216 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 1961
There is a long line of cases which hold inferentially with the position taken by the People in this case (Matter of Bitz v. Canavan, 257 App. Div. 247 , affd. 281 N. Y. 699 ; People ex rel. Atkins v. Jennings, 222 App. … Williams v. Jackson, 5 A D 2d 922; People ex rel. von Moser v. New York State Parole Bd., 179 Misc. 397 , affd. 266 App. Div. 896 ; People ex rel. Mason v. Brophy, 235 App. Div. 432 ; People ex rel. Trinker v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedPeople v. North River Sugar Refining Co.
121 N.Y. 582 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1890
As was said in People ex rel. v. K. & M. T. R. … Co. v. F. Bank, 7 Wend. 412 ; Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. 29 ; Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray, 596 .) The case last cited furnishes the reasons with precision and at length.
Cited 92 timesPublishedClaim of Scalesse v. Printing Advertising Corp.
30 N.Y.2d 234 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1972
The Referee’s determination was rescinded by the Workmen’s Compensation Board (Board) and the case was remanded to determine any possible tolling. … (Matter of Stoever v. Shearton Astor W. L. Hotel Operating Co., 29 A D 2d 597, 598.) “ For the purpose of section 25-a,” we said in Matter of Casey v. Hinkle Iron Works ( 299 N.
Cited 15 timesPublishedFirst Trust & Deposit Co. v. Goodrich
3 N.Y.2d 410 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1957
In the cases of Seiter v. Straub ( 1 Dem. 264 , 269) and Lamar v. Micou ( 112 U. … Cases such as Matter of Rothfeld v. Graves ( 264 App. Div. 54 , affd. 289 N. Y. 583 ) or Matter of Ratkowsky v. Browne ( 267 App. Div. 643 ) regarding the domicile of incompetents are not controlling.
Cited 9 timesPublishedClaim of De Maio v. Rockford Plumbing & Heating
48 N.Y.2d 665 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1979
Cited 3 timesPublishedSpencer v. Standard Chemicals & Metals Corp.
237 N.Y. 479 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 1924
(Cummings v. Morris, 25 N. Y. 625 .) In ether words, the plaintiff must have some *481 title, legal or equitable, to the thing assigned. (Hays v. Hathorn, 74 N. Y. 486.) If the assignee have such title it is enough. … (Allen v. Brown, 44 N. Y. 228 ; Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 N. Y. 349; Sheridan v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 68 N. Y. 30 ; Brown v. Powers, 53 App. Div. 251 .) But legal title or equitable interest he must have.
Cited 60 timesPublishedPeople Ex Rel. Heiser v. . Gilon
121 N.Y. 551 · New York Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1890
(People ex rel. v. Bd. Assrs., 16 Hun, 407 .) … (Heiser v. Mayor, etc., 104 N. Y. 68 .)
Cited 15 timesPublishedPeople Ex Rel. Atkins v. Jennings
248 N.Y. 46 · New York Court of Appeals · May 1, 1928
(Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 466 .) … (Anderson v. Corall, 263 U. S. 193 .) *54 In People ex rel. Kohler v. Kidney ( 183 App. Div. 921 ; affd., 223 N.
Cited 42 timesPublishedPeople Ex Rel. Stepski v. Harford
286 N.Y. 477 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1941
Nechamcus v. Warden ( 144 N. … It was said in People v. Gillson ( 109 N.
Cited 13 timesPublished127 N.Y. 523 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1891
Brown. … Brown should be carved out of their respective lives, thus limiting the duration of the suspension of ownership of any portion of the estate to two lives. Robert v. Corning ( 89 N.
Cited 66 timesPublished96 N.Y. 538 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1884
(Phil lips v. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 412 ; Rawson v. Pa. R. R. Co., 48 id. 216 ; Whiton v. Snyder, 88 id. 299.) But it is denied that a valid gift of the mare was made. … It was not an agreement for the board of the horse, and he did not, within the meaning of the statute, board her.
Cited 11 timesPublished
Ask Donna