Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.51s
Matter of Chernin v. Progress Serv. Co., Inc.
9 N.Y.2d 880 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1961
Cited 5 timesPublished39 N.Y.2d 275 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 1976
(Matter of Soros v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Southampton, 50 Misc 2d 205, 208 , affd without opn 27 AD2d 705 .) … (E.g., Matter of Soros v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Southampton, 50 Misc 2d 205, 208 , affd without opn 27 AD2d_705, supra; Matter of Feldman v Commerdinger, 26 Misc 2d 221, 222 ; Matter of Fina Homes v Beckel, 24 Misc 2d
Cited 51 timesPublished45 N.Y.2d 815 · New York Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 1978
On July 27, 1978 two petitions were filed with the New York City Board of Elections, each designating Ferris as a candidate for re-election. … (See Matter of Rosen v McNab, 25 NY2d 798 ; but, compare, Matter of Bayne v Sachs, 41 NY2d 1042 [denial of validation based in part on failure of candidate to list address].)
Cited 34 timesPublishedCorcoran v. Banner Super Market, Inc.
19 N.Y.2d 425 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1967
The board which fell upon the plaintiff was five and one-half inches wide. It stood on top of another board and together the two boards filled in the five and one-half-inch space between 2052 and 2054 Flatbush Avenue. … In Ybarra v.
Modified on other grounds by Corcoran v. Banner Super Market, Inc., 21 N.Y.2d 793 (1968)Cited 97 timesPublished28 N.Y.2d 108 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 1971
Those difficulties were examined in Udell v. Haas (21 N Y 2d 463). … Indeed, many of the conditions followed recommendations of the Onondaga County Planning Board. No prejudice, therefore, has been shown by plaintiffs in the imposition of the conditions which, here, as in Church v.
Cited 12 timesPublished76 N.Y. 432 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 1879
(Tone v. The Mayor, etc., 70 N. Y., 157 .) … That board does not act as assessors. It has no power to make assessments. It can only review assessments made by the board of assessors ; and if it finds no errors, it must confirm the assessments, as made.
Cited 5 timesPublishedPeople ex rel. Robertson v. New York State Division
67 N.Y.2d 197 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1986
Diamond v Flood ( 100 AD2d 604, 605 ), in which it remitted to the Parole Board a prompt hearing question and noted "that, in the future, parolees will not be permitted to obtain judicial review of claims of a denial of a … Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 63 NY2d 100, 103 ).
Cited 26 timesPublished25 N.Y.2d 237 · New York Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1969
(See Mulinos v. Coliseum Constr. Corp., 22 A D 2d 163; Brown v. Weissberg, 22 A D 2d 282.) … (See Foisy v. Penn Aluminum, 31 A D 2d 783 [4th Dept.]; Williams v. Baker, 29 A D 2d 915 [4th Dept.]; Goldberg v. Schwartz, 29 A D 2d 873 [2d Dept.]; Terasaka v. Rehfield, 28 A D 2d 1011 [2d Dept]; Kaprow v.
Cited 66 timesPublishedState Division of Human Rights v. Genesee Hospital
50 N.Y.2d 113 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1980
Administrative agencies " 'have no authority to create a rule out of harmony with the statute’ ” (Finger Lakes Racing Assn. v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 45 NY2d 471, 480-481 , quoting Matter of Jones v Berman, … No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, 381 ).
Cited 23 timesPublished46 N.Y.2d 674 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 1979
No hearing had been held and no reasons were given for the board’s action. … (Cf. *683 Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564 .) Specifically, appellant was not entitled to a predetermination hearing or to any statement of the reasons for the action of the Administrative Board.
Cited 20 timesPublishedGeneral Electric Co. v. Town of Salina
69 N.Y.2d 730 · New York Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1986
Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 510 ; G.R.F., Inc. v Board of Assessors, 41 NY2d 512 , 513), and where, as here, evidence of a recent sale price is lacking, market value may be determined with reference to recent sales of comparable … properties (Matter of Merrick Holding Corp. v Board of Assessors, 45 NY2d 538 ; Matter of Great Atl. & Pac.
Cited 40 timesPublished92 N.Y.2d 489 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 1998
Under a reopener clause, the statutory duty to bargain is revived, along with the statutory machinery for resolution of an impasse discussed in Matter of City of Newburgh v Newman (supra) (see, Matter of Board of Educ. … Assn., Local 1000 v New York State Pub. Empl.
Cited 23 timesPublished85 N.Y. 185 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1881
J., in Hall v. … J., in Bailey v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedSil-Tone Collision, Inc. v. Foschio
63 N.Y.2d 406 · New York Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1984
The scope of review of the Review Board upon appeal is defined by section 398-f (subd 3, par [a]), which provides: “The review board will review all appeals filed pursuant to this article and will make recommendations to … Sta. v New York State Dept, of Motor Vehicles, 92 AD2d 688 ; Greater Boston Tel. Corp. v Federal Communication Comm., 444 F2d 841, 853, cert den 403 US 923 .)
Cited 9 timesPublished223 N.Y. 383 · New York Court of Appeals · May 14, 1918
(Rexford v. Knight, supra; Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U. S. 380, 404 ; Crozier v. Krupp, 224 U. S. 290, 305, 306 .) No other limitations are placed upon the right to take. … (Hellen v. City of Medford, 188 Mass. 42 ; Kelly v. City of Waterbury, 83 Conn. 270 ; Wood v. Trustees of State Hospital, 164 Penn. St. 159.)
Cited 49 timesPublishedPeople Ex Rel. Bast v. . Voorhis
227 N.Y. 167 · New York Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1919
Lempp v. Board of Elections, N. Y. Law Journal, Sept. 30, 1918.) The order entered thereon was on appeal affirmed by the Appellate Division (People ex rel. Lempp v. Board of Elections, 185 App. … Lempp v. Board of Elections, 224 N.
Cited 4 timesPublishedMatter of Kransdorf v. Bd. of Educ. of the Northport-E. Northport Union Free Sch. Dist.
81 N.Y.2d 871 · New York Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1993
That court also denied the Board’s motion for reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed unanimously (Matter of Kransdorf v Board of Educ., 181 AD2d 771 ). This Court granted the Board’s motion for leave to appeal. … Board of Educ., 51 NY2d 855, 857 ).
Cited 10 timesPublishedClaim of the State Treasurer v. West Side Trucking Co.
233 N.Y. 202 · New York Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1922
(Matter of State Industrial Commission v. Newman, 222 N. Y. 363 .) … (Matter of Belcher v. Carthage Machine Co., 224 N. Y. 326 ; Matter of Hansen v. Turner Construction Co., 224 N. Y. 331 ; Matter of Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., supra.)
Cited 24 timesPublished52 N.Y.2d 938 · New York Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1981
Cited 28 timesPublished
Ask Donna