Case law

Talbot v. Thomas C. Brown Co.

239 A.D. 872 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1933

Charles Bennett Contracting Corp. v. Brown

249 A.D. 724 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 1936

Berkeley Industries v. Brown Trucking, Inc.

284 A.D. 873 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 13, 1954

Brown, Harris, Stevens, Inc. v. Abrams

2 A.D.2d 376 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 7, 1956

They cite and rely upon the decision of this court in Matter of Milner v. Abrams (1 A D 2d 883), as authority for their right to be heard anew and to be relieved from that determination.

Coon v. Board of Education

160 A.D.2d 403 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 17, 1990

to protect them against dangers of which the Board had notice.” … (See, Decker v Dundee Cent. School Dist., 4 NY2d 462, 464 .) Where duty to supervise is mandatory, notice is not an issue.

People v. Brown

30 A.D.3d 435 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 6, 2006

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 1, 2004 (People v Brown, 12 AD3d 378 … The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 [1983]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Hunter v. Board of Appeals

4 A.D.2d 961 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 18, 1957

The return of a board may set forth facts known to its members but not otherwise disclosed (People ex rel. Fordham Manor Reformed Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280 ). … The return must include definite findings and may not be merely conelusory in form (Matter of the American Seminary of the Bible v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 280 App.

Halyalkar v. Board of Regents

127 A.D.2d 346 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 1987

Co. v People's Natl. Bank & *351 Trust Co., 59 F2d 149, 152). … We do not find the penalty to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 360 ; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233).

Braun v. Board of Education

248 A.D. 586 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1936

Hannan v. Board of Education

55 A.D.2d 647 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 1976

The board contends on this appeal that the *649 holding in the case of Steele v Board of Educ. ( 40 NY2d 456 ), which was decided after Special Term reached its decision in the instant proceeding, requires a reversal herein … Matter of Mitchell v Board of Educ., 40 NY2d 904, 905 ).

Lozinak v. Board of Education

115 A.D.3d 1216 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 2014

Merchants' Bank of Canada v. Brown

83 N.Y.S. 1037 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 9, 1903

Merchants’ Bank v. Griswold, 72 N. Y. 472 , 28 Am. Rep, 159; Union National Bank v. Chapman, 179 N. Y. 538 , 62 N. … Inst. (5th Ed.) § 1399; Struthers v. Kendall, 41 Pa. 214 , 80 Am. Dec. 610 .

Armitage v. Board of Education

210 A.D. 812 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1924

McGill v. Board of Education

59 A.D.2d 888 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 7, 1977

No justification or suitable reason has been given for the delay herein (see Matter of Self v County of Nassau, 57 AD2d 963 ). Cohalan, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Santiago v. Board of Education

41 A.D.2d 616 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 13, 1973

The City of New York and the Board of Education are distinct entities and service on the city does not constitute service on the board. (Sálner v. City of New York, 12 A D 2d 771.) … Board No. 1 of the incident, giving that as a reason, among others, for his resignation. The Court of Appeals having so recently, in Matter of Murray v.

Bennett v. Board of Education

16 A.D.2d 651 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 2, 1962

be cast in damages for injuries caused by the act of an intervening third party such as the batter in the stickball game here; the risks of the game were patent and were assumed by the plaintiff as a spectator (Lutzker v. … Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 262 App. Div. 881 , affd. 287 N. Y. 822 ; Kantor v. City of New York, 251 App. Div. 454, 459-456 ; Diele v. Board of Educ. of City of N .Y., 1 A D 2d 676; Glatstein v.

Bell v. Board of Regents

269 A.D. 588 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 29, 1945

Y. 554, 559 ; see, also, People v. Grogan, 260 N. Y. 138 .) … (Matter of Cherry v. Board of Regents, 289 N. Y. 148, 159 .)

Bali v. Board of Education

68 A.D.2d 360 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1979

Based on our analysis of Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ. ( 35 NY2d 534 ) and Matter of Meliti v Nyquist ( 41 NY2d 183 ) we hold that the board lacked authority to suspend petitioner without pay. … In Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ.

Communications & Entertainment Corp. v. Hibbard Brown & Co.

202 A.D.2d 191 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 3, 1994

judgment was also properly denied in view of the parties’ sharply conflicting affidavits since it is well settled that it is not the court’s role to pass upon issues of credibility on a summary judgment motion (Capelin Assocs. v

Baker v. Board of Education

127 A.D.2d 967 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 27, 1987

Board of Educ., 123 AD2d 500, 502 , Iv granted 69 NY2d 603 ). … Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d 474 ), Special Term properly granted plaintiff leave to file a late notice of claim because defendants had actual notice of the claims and will not suffer prejudice.