Case law

People v. Brown

116 A.D.3d 1062 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 2014

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Edmunson, 109 AD3d 621 [2013]). … Therefore, the appropriate vehicle for review of this claim is a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]).

Brown v. Cope Bestway Express, Inc.

99 A.D.3d 746 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 10, 2012

Ultimate Servs., Inc., 45 AD3d at 541 ; Perini Corp. v WDF, Inc., 33 AD3d at 606-607 ; T T Enters. v Gralnick, 127 AD2d 651, 652 [1987]). … Finally, a joint trial of action No. 1 and action No. 2 will not prejudice any of Brown’s substantial rights (see Whiteman v Parsons Transp. Group of N.Y., Inc., 72 AD3d 677, 678 [2010]).

Brown v. Sangertown Square, LLC

48 A.D.3d 1072 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 1, 2008

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Chesley

7 A.D.3d 368 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2004

Eventually, petitioners Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Lorillard Tobacco Company, R.J. … It is beyond cavil that the scope of judicial review of an arbitration proceeding is extremely limited (CPLR 7511 [b]; Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City

Household Finance Realty Corp. v. Brown

13 A.D.3d 340 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 2004

However, the defendants failed to rebut the prima facie evidence of proper service created by the affidavit of the plaintiffs process server (see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343 [2003]; Kaywood v Cigpak, … Thus, the motion was properly denied (see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, supra; Kaywood v Cigpak, Inc., supra). The defendants’ remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or without merit.

Sigua Iron Co. v. Brown

58 A.D. 436 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1901

Brown, the defendant in this action. There was pasted upon that stub a receipt in the following words* “ Received the above described certificate July 18th, 1890, Harold P.. Brown.” … Brown was produced and admitted. In addition to that it was made to appear that the stock book showed no other certificate than. No. 106 ever issued to the defendant.

Emigrant Bank v. Brown

2019 NY Slip Op 6746 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 25, 2019

Emigrant Bank v Brown ( 2019 NY Slip Op 06746 ) Emigrant Bank v Brown 2019 NY Slip Op 06746 Decided on September 25, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to … MILLER, JJ. 2017-00765 (Index No. 705893/13) [*1]Emigrant Bank, etc., appellant, v Eldwyn Brown, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

Kittredge v. Planning Board

57 A.D.3d 1336 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 2008

Although the Board was free to determine which environmental factors merited the deepest consideration (see Matter of WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v Planning Bd. of Town of Lloyd, 79 NY2d 373, 380-381 [1992]; Akpan v Koch, 75 … Finley, 10 NY3d 647, 655 [2008]; Friedman v Connecticut Gen.

Brown v. State of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 02740 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 1, 2026

Brown v State of New York 2026 NY Slip Op 02740 May 1, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. … KIM SUE BROWN, FORMERLY KNOWN AS KIM DADOU, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT, v STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (CLAIM NO. 141447.)

People v. Brown

116 A.D.3d 568 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 17, 2014

Georgia ( 467 US 39 [1984]) to consider such alternatives (see People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 14-19 [2013]). … The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations.

Brown v. People

117 A.D.3d 945 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 21, 2014

Brown, commenced in that court under indictment No. 2349/04, and thereupon to transfer the motion to another justice to hear and determine, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief. … Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]).

People v. Brown

115 A.D.3d 974 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 2014

For the reasons stated in connection with the appeal of a co-defendant in People v Thomas ( 115 AD3d 995 [2014] [decided herewith]), the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. … Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 19 [2013], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 823 [2013]; People v Frost, 100 NY2d 129, 137 [2003]; People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 494 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1002 [1997]).

Brown v. State of New York

2023 NY Slip Op 04997 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 4, 2023

Brown v State of New York ( 2023 NY Slip Op 04997 ) Brown v State of New York 2023 NY Slip Op 04997 Decided on October 4, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant … VENTURA, JJ. 2022-02529 [*1]Linda Brown, appellant, v State of New York, respondent. (Claim No. 136884) Slater Slater Schulman LLP, New York, NY (Stephenie Lannigan Bross and Samantha A.

Village Board v. Rattner

130 A.D.2d 654 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 1987

Field & Co., 80 FED 718; Garfinkle v Arcata Natl. … Corp., 64 FED 688; Smith v Bentley, 9 FED 489).

Brown v. People

117 A.D.3d 945 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 21, 2014

Brown, commenced in that court under indictment No. 2349/04, and thereupon to transfer the motion to another justice to hear and determine, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief. … Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]).

People v. Brown

115 A.D.3d 1204 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 2014

Because defendant waived his right to appeal, however, he is precluded from asking us to modify his sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Suttles … People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]).

People v. Brown

115 A.D.3d 974 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 2014

For the reasons stated in connection with the appeal of a co-defendant in People v Thomas ( 115 AD3d 995 [2014] [decided herewith]), the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. … Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 19 [2013], cert denied 571 US —, 134 S Ct 823 [2013]; People v Frost, 100 NY2d 129, 137 [2003]; People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 494 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1002 [1997]).

Wright v. Brown

115 A.D.3d 970 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 26, 2014

The father’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; Matter of Saunders v Smith, 27 AD3d 759, 759-760 [2006]).

Brown v. Hancock Realty II, Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 03138 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 20, 2026

Brown v Hancock Realty II, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 03138 May 20, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. … Devon Anthony Brown, appellant, v Hancock Realty II, Inc., respondent, et al., defendant.

In re the Arbitration between Board of Higher Education & Brown

66 A.D.2d 748 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1978

The arbitrator stated his reasons as follows: "If the 'reasons’ requirement in Section 9.9 is to have meaning, Brown was entitled to know where his performance was short of the mark. … interpreted by the Court of Appeals to mean that a determination will be vacated "where the document expressly limits or is construed to limit the powers of the arbitrators, hence, narrowing the scope of arbitration” (Lentine v