Case law

Braham v. Brown

156 A.D.2d 184 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 1989

It cannot be said on this record that respondents exercised their discretion in an arbitrary or irrational fashion or failed to act in good faith (see, Matter of Olsson v Board of Higher Educ., 49 NY2d 408, 414 ) either in

People v. Brown

168 A.D.2d 994 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 21, 1990

Defendant was fully apprised of the potential conflict of interest caused by the joint representation and consented to counsel’s appear *995 anee (see, People v Recupero, 73 NY2d 877, 878-879 ; People v McDonald, 68 NY2d … Further, we find that defendant’s subsequent counsel provided meaningful representation and therefore defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 ; People v Baldi,

People v. Brown

45 A.D.3d 1424 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 2007

Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted (see People v Crawford, 71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Stephen K. Lindley, J.

People v. Brown

155 A.D.2d 608 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 20, 1989

Absent an express waiver, the defendant’s presence is also required on resentencing (People v Lucks, 91 AD2d 896 ; People v Lee, 84 AD2d 699 ; People v Brown, 79 AD2d 659 ; see also, People v Green, 54 NY2d 878 ).

People v. Brown

168 A.D.2d 702 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 1990

A complete and thorough plea allocution was made and no evidence was presented other than defendant’s self-serving assertions to support his motion (see, People v Franco, 145 AD2d 837 ; People v Zuk, 130 AD2d 886 , lv denied … Finally, it is clear from the record that defendant was provided with effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Bell, 141 AD2d 749 ). Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Kopelson v. Appeals Board

120 A.D.2d 570 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 1986

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the respondent Appeals Board of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, dated April 30, 1984, as affirmed the finding of an Administrative

Danyi v. Board of Trustees

176 A.D.2d 451 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 1, 1991

(Matter of Drayson v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 37 AD2d 378 , affd 32 NY2d 852 .) … (Matter of Becker v Ward, 169 AD2d 453 .)

Bowles v. Board of Education

20 A.D.2d 780 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 24, 1964

(See Soto v. Correa, 20 A D 2d 694; Gonzalez v. Mackler, 19 A D 2d 229.) … Warney v. Board of Educ., 290 N. Y. 329 .) The conclusion of the court that the infant was not mentally retarded at the time of the accident is completely without support in the record. Concur — Breitel, J.

People v. Brown

153 A.D.2d 804 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 14, 1989

(See, Anders v California, 386 US 738 ; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 .)

Skliar v. Board of Education

45 A.D.2d 1012 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 29, 1974

Section 2510 of the Education Law is applicable to respondents’ school district (Matter of Baron v. Mackreth, 30 A D 2d 810, affd. 26 N Y 2d 1039). … The Board of Education is not, in our opinion, vested with the discretion which would allow it to retain teachers in positions not abolished because of superior teaching abilities in disregard of the seniority provisions

People v. Brown

167 A.D.2d 212 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1990

(People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305 .) We also find the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status. … (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890 , lv denied 72 NY2d 918 .) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross and Ellerin, JJ.

Smith v. Board of Appeals

202 A.D.2d 674 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 28, 1994

Our review of the Board’s determination is limited to whether that determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 ; Matter of Fox v Corcoran, 172 AD2d … This Court may not substitute its discretion for that of the Board unless its determination is arbitrary or contrary to law (see, Matter of Brucia v Planning Bd., 157 AD2d 657 ).

Conklin v. Town Board

53 A.D.2d 668 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 21, 1976

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to compel respondent to reinstate petitioners as members of the Planning Board of the Town of Warwick, petitioners appeal (by permission) from an order of the Supreme

Halliday v. Planning Board

48 A.D.2d 746 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 22, 1975

Glass v. Town Board

38 A.D.2d 840 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 14, 1972

Helmle v. Town Board

234 A.D. 722 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1931

People ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Board of Supervisors

68 A.D. 650 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 15, 1902

People v. Brown

154 A.D.2d 915 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 6, 1989

Counsel’s application to withdraw granted (see, People v Crawford, 71 AD2d 38 ). (Appeal from judgment of Yates County Court, DePasquale, J. — sodomy, first degree.) Present —Callahan, J.

People v. Brown

154 A.D.2d 610 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 23, 1989

proceeding reveals that, con *611 trary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not increase the sentence because the defendant declined to cooperate with law enforcement authorities on an unrelated matter (cf., People v … The term of incarceration imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive, and we decline to reduce it (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Hooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Brown v. Ward

160 A.D.2d 658 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 26, 1990

(See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 230-231.) … Considering the multiple charges and specifications of which petitioner was found guilty, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of