Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.29s
42 A.D.2d 782 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 30, 1973
and the date of the board meeting at which it is to be considered. … Since the law generally favors the prospective interpretation of a statute without a clear expression from the Legislature to the contrary (Gleason v.
Cited 1 timesPublished121 A.D.2d 708 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 30, 1986
’ failure to allege such service in their complaint was a procedural and not a jurisdictional defect, and Special Term did not err in allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to allege such service (see, Teodoro v … In Kelly v Kane ( 98 AD2d 861, 862 ), it was held that service of a notice of claim after, rather than prior to, commencement of the action, is a procedural defect only "and not fatal to the cause of action”.
Cited 5 timesPublished109 A.D.3d 423 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 14, 2013
Additionally, the *424 ledger maintained by the Board of Elections correctly identified all of the volumes in the petition. … Our decision in Matter of Feliciano v Guastella ( 98 AD3d 434 [2012]), relied upon by the Board of Elections, is factually distinguishable.
Cited 1 timesPublishedVernat, Inc. v. Cross & Brown Co.
273 A.D. 843 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 1948
Cited 1 timesPublished32 A.D.3d 1212 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 22, 2006
Co. v Piper, 286 AD2d 903 [2001]; Niles v County of Chautauqua, 285 AD2d 988, 989 [2001]). We therefore modify the order by denying the motion of defendant and reinstating the complaint against him.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBelluardo v. Board of Education
68 A.D.2d 887 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1979
Although the letter was not verified, the court has the power to permit the claim to be amended by supplying the omitted verification (McCullough v Board of Educ., 11 AD2d 740 ). … Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman, 52 AD2d 608 ). However, the burden of proving this fact lies with the school board (cf. Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman, supra).
Cited 9 timesPublishedFeinberg v. Board of Education
78 A.D.2d 889 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 17, 1980
No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, 380 ). … Board of Educ., 73 AD2d 949 ; Matter of Tadken v Board of Educ., 65 AD2d 820 , mot for lv to app den 46 NY2d 711 ).
Cited 6 timesPublishedKalik v. Board of Examiners of the Board of Education
39 A.D.2d 943 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 1972
Gladstone v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 26 A D 2d 838, affd. 19 N Y 2d 1004). Munder, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
Cited 0 timesPublishedStein v. Rent Guidelines Board
127 A.D.2d 189 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 9, 1987
v Rent Guidelines Bd., 104 Misc 2d 101 [Sup Ct, NY County, Martin B. … Center v Department of Health, 48 NY2d 967, 968-969 [1979]).
Cited 9 timesPublished244 A.D.2d 441 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 1997
Cited 0 timesPublished216 A.D. 391 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 16, 1926
In the action brought by the deceased petitioner against the board of education (Levitch v. Board of Education, 212 App. … (Matter of O’Connor v. Emerson, 196 App. Div. 807, 810 ; Matter of McCarthy v. Board of Education, 106 Misc. 193, 196 , Callaghan, J.).
Reversed on other grounds by Matter of Levitch v. Board of Education, 243 N.Y. 373 (1926)Cited 9 timesPublished33 A.D.3d 386 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 10, 2006
Those portions of the prosecutor’s summation that defendant characterizes as vouching generally constituted fair comment on the evidence made in response to defense arguments (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv … Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal (see People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv *387 denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).
Cited 0 timesPublished10 A.D.3d 251 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 5, 2004
]; Hodge v Niagara Falls Gazette Publ. … in part 2 NY3d 819 [2004]; Vachon v State of New York, 286 AJD2d 528 [2001]; Jefferson v Temco Servs.
Cited 1 timesPublishedMcSweeney v. Board of Education
138 A.D.2d 847 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 1988
Board of Educ., 62 NY2d 656, 657 ; Matter of Adrian v Bd. of Educ., 60 AD2d 840 ). … Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233; Matter of Katz v Ambach, 99 AD2d 897 ).
Cited 7 timesPublished58 A.D.2d 876 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 11, 1977
As so modified, judgment affirmed (see People v Smith, 51 AD2d 782 ). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRosen v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
11 A.D.3d 524 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 12, 2004
Since a civil conspiracy cause of action requires a showing of intentional conduct, negligence cannot serve as the underlying tort (see Sackman v Liggett Group, Inc., 965 F Supp 391, 395 [ED NY 1997]).
Cited 1 timesPublished49 A.D.3d 428 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 20, 2008
Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preser v. Commn., 2 NY3d 727 [2004]). … This dispute is not appropriate for resolution in the judicial arena, since the “responsibility for resolving these questions is vested in a network of officials and boards, on both the local and State level” (James v Board
Cited 3 timesPublishedWEICHERT, SUSAN M. v. BROWN, ROY A.
133 A.D.3d 1341 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 20, 2015
WEICHERT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROY A. BROWN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. SUSAN M. WEICHERT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. … [appeal No. 2], 108 AD3d 1127, 1128; see Matter of Reilly v City of Rome, 114 AD3d 1255, 1256).
Cited 2 timesPublishedRudey v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc.
233 A.D.2d 148 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 1996
Cited 0 timesPublished54 A.D.2d 959 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 22, 1976
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna