Case law

Billinger v. Board of Education

271 A.D.2d 630 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 24, 2000

While schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, they are not insurers of the students’ safety (see, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 ). … A plaintiff must also establish that the alleged breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra, at 50; Schlecker v Connetquot Cent

Banks v. Board of Education

140 A.D. 907 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1910

Buckbee v. Board of Education

116 A.D. 916 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1906

Claim of Butterfield v. Brown

261 A.D. 1022 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 12, 1941

Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Foster, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., dissents. … (Matter of Miles v. Colegrove, 258 App. Div. 1014 ; affd., 284 N. Y. 609 .)

Sulzer v. Environmental Control Board

165 A.D.2d 270 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 26, 1991

(See, e.g., Smith v Goguen, 415 US 566 ; People v Dietze, 75 NY2d 47, 53 .) … Such proceeding shall be commenced by the service of notice of violation returnable before the board.” .

Gravagna v. Board of Elections

21 A.D.3d 504 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 17, 2005

Tyson v. Board of Education

122 A.D. 917 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1907

Hawes v. Board of Education

143 A.D. 934 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1911

McCann v. Board of Supervisors

148 A.D. 907 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1911

Sauerbrunn v. Board of Education

151 A.D. 936 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1912

Meeteers v. Board of Education

154 A.D. 886 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1912

Connor v. Board of Education

154 A.D. 895 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1912

Steinson v. Board of Education

80 N.Y.S. 1149 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1903

Board of Education v. Sandman

229 A.D. 853 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1930

Walker v. Board of Examiners of the Board of Education

7 A.D.2d 968 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 3, 1959

Salisbury v. Board of Assessors

111 A.D.2d 1022 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1985

Although Real Property Tax Law § 525 (2) declares that a person who willfully neglects to cooperate with the inquiries of a board of assessment review relevant to a contested assessment is not entitled to a reduction thereof

Brown v. Lavine

45 A.D.2d 858 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1974

Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison, 27 N Y 2d 376; People ex rel. Rogers v. Stanley, 17 N Y 2d 256). … Jennings v. Jennings, 42 A D 2d 568; Matter of Amicucci v. Moore, 42 A D 2d 701; People ex rel. Amendola v. Jackson, 74 Misc 2d 797 ).

Board of Managers v. Grishanova

117 A.D.3d 442 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 2014

properly held defendant in contempt where she violated the TRO, which unequivocally prohibited her from having guests reside in her apartment for more than five days if *443 she were not residing there (see Matter of McCormick v … After hearing oral argument and based on the overwhelming evidence in the papers before the court, a further hearing on the motion was unnecessary (see Farkas v Farkas, 209 AD2d 316, 317-318 [1st Dept 1994]; Jaffe v Jaffe

Brown v. Harlem Laundre-Centre, Inc.

42 A.D.2d 513 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 5, 1973

the circumstances here dis *514 closed, orderly procedure requires that defendants first conduct ah examination of plaintiff before they attempt to discover and inspect any relevant specifically designated documents (Bios v.

People ex rel. Brown v. Follette

31 A.D.2d 954 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 1969

Keitt v. McMann, 18 N Y 2d 257, 262; People ex rel. Garcia V. Warden, 28 A D 2d 682, mot. for lv. to app. den. 20 N Y 2d 645). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.