Case law

People v. Brown

31 A.D.2d 826 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 17, 1969

Y. 193 ; People v. Seppi, 221 N. Y. 62 ; People v. Festa, 9 A D 2d 556; Cf. People v. Brown, 20 N Y 2d 238; People v. Geralds, 29 A D 2d 984). … In the circumstances, the denial of her motion for a mistrial and a severance was well within the bounds of discretion (People v. Owens, 22 N Y 2d 93, 98, supra). Beldock, P.

Lee v. Board of Education

263 A.D. 23 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 28, 1941

The infant and his guardians sued the teacher, the board of education and the driver of the car. … In Hoose v. Drumm ( 281 N. Y. 54, 57, 58 ) the teacher’s duty to his pupils was defined in the following language: “ Teachers have watched over the play of their pupils time out of mind.

More v. General Brown Central School District

262 A.D.2d 1030 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 18, 1999

Nor was defendant prejudiced by the delay; the passage of time does not prevent defendant from investigating this claim (cf., Gangloff v Islip School Dist., 240 AD2d 366 ; Matter of Hubbard v City School Dist., 204 AD2d 721 … ; Matter of Salyer v Valley Cent.

Rodriguez v. Board of Education

301 A.D.2d 641 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 27, 2003

the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant either created the alleged dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof in time to remedy or warn of it (see Rivera v … Waldbaums, Inc., 298 AD2d 449 ; Dane v Taco Bell Corp., 297 AD2d 274 ).

Starr v. Board of Elections

89 A.D.2d 978 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 8, 1982

Under the circumstances, Special Term should have continued the hearing and ruled upon petitioners’ additional challenges (see Matter of Halloway v Blakely, 77 AD2d 932 ; Matter of Flowers v Wells, 57 AD2d 636 ).

Board of Education v. State

111 A.D.2d 505 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 1985

We turn first to Special Term’s decision that plaintiff Board of Education lacked standing to maintain this action and note our agreement with this determination (see, Matter of Jeter v Ellenville Cent. … School Dist., 41 NY2d 283, 287 ; Board of Educ. v Regan, 87 AD2d 1001, 1002 , affd 58 NY2d 1005 ). As for plaintiff taxpayers, two possible bases for standing are asserted.

Martins v. Board of Education

82 A.D.3d 1062 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 22, 2011

414 Equities LLC, 57 AD3d 65, 80 [2008]; Shipkoski v Watch Case Factory Assoc., 292 AD2d 587, 589 [2002]; cf. … Balladores v Southgate Owners Corp., 40 AD3d 667 [2007]; compare Cavanagh v Mega Contr., Inc., 34 AD3d 411, 412 [2006]).

Brown v. Retsof Mining Co.

113 A.D. 918 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1906

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, and order granting extra allowance reversed for want of power in the court at Trial Term to grant the. same, without costs to either party, on the authority of Brown v.

O'Brien v. Board of Education

71 A.D.2d 605 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 1979

Hosp. v Sipprell, 33 AD2d 977 ), address ourselves to the merits, and arrive at the same result as Special Term. … Cross Armored Carrier Corp. v Valentine, 49 Mise 2d 917, 922-923, affd 28 AD2d 1090 ). We find that the board has not unilaterally revised or altered the contract. It has merely enforced the contract as it was written.

Jaffe v. Brown-Jaffe

98 A.D.3d 898 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 25, 2012

Instead, it should have fixed a charging lien based upon the account stated (see Tunick v Shaw, 45 AD3d 145, 149 [1st Dept 2007]; Bartning v Bartning, 16 AD3d at 250 ). … Since the record here does not show that there has been a final judgment in this action, the law firm’s request for a money judgment was properly denied (see Squitieri v Squitieri, 77 AD3d 428, 428 [2010]).

Nemecek v. Board of Trustees

99 A.D.2d 954 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 1, 1984

(Matter of City of New York v Schoeck, 294 NY 559, 566 .) The determination of the Medical Board is not without some evidence to support it. As the Fire Department Chief Medical Officer Dr. … Matter of Drayson v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 37 AD2d 378, 380 , affd 32 NY2d 852 .)

Ferman v. Board of Appeals

69 A.D.2d 882 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 23, 1979

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Sea Cliff which denied petitioner’s application for a variance, the board appeals from a judgment … Therefore, the determination should have been confirmed (see Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 ; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 ). Titone, J. P., Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Brown v. Retsof Mining Co.

112 A.D. 887 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1906

Judgment modified by striking out the provision for an extra allowance for want of power in the trial court to grant'the same, and as so modified affirmed, withotit costs, on the authority of Brown v.

Mantello v. Board of Elections

265 A.D.2d 592 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 7, 1999

While subject matter jurisdiction is generally lacking absent *593 a canvass of the votes by the Board (see, Testa v Ravitz, 84 NY2d 893, 895 ), 1 we nevertheless agree with Mantello that an order is necessary compelling … Although Larry Bugbee, the Republican Commissioner for the Board, executed a statement of the Board totaling the votes cast, Wade refused to sign it.

Sampson v. Board of Education

191 A.D.2d 283 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 1993

As petitioner was represented by the United Federation of Teachers at arbitration, she has no standing to seek a vacatur of the arbitration award (Matter of Diaz v Pilgrim State Psychiatric Ctr., 95 AD2d 809, 810 , affd 62

Perotto Development Corp. v. Sear-Brown Group

269 A.D.2d 749 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 16, 2000

The court properly determined that the limitation of liability provision is enforceable unless plaintiffs can establish that defendant was grossly negligent in the performance of its contractual duties (see, Sear-Brown Group … v Jay Bldrs., 244 AD2d 966, 967 ).

Vaello v. Parole Board Division

48 A.D.3d 1018 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 28, 2008

v Chairman of N.Y. … The use of “nonstatutory, conclusory language,” such as that employed by the Board here, impermissibly leaves the reviewing court to guess at the basis for the Board’s denial (Matter of Prout v Dennison, 26 AD3d at 541 ).

Smith v. Board of Education

104 A.D.2d 445 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 20, 1984

This court affirmed that judgment (Matter of Smith v Board of Educ., 97 AD2d 795 ). … Caffaro v Trayna, 35 NY2d 245 ; Stuart v Board of Directors of Police Benevolent Assn., 86 AD2d 721 ; Owens v Palm Tree Nursing Home, 50 AD2d 865 ).

Chmela v. Board of Education

17 A.D.2d 826 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 9, 1962

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff when he fell down the stairs of a public school operated by defendant Board of Education of the City of New *827 York, the fall allegedly … If it be assumed that the defendant Board of Education was negligent in failing to provide closer supervision of its charges at the time and place of the accident, there is no evidence from which it may be determined whether

Mitchell v. Board of Education

113 A.D.2d 924 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 30, 1985

We agree with Special Term’s conclusion that appellants have offered no justifiable basis for prohibiting the use of unobtrusive, hand-held tape-recording devices at its public meetings (see, People v Ystueta, 99 Misc 2d … 1105 ; Committee on Open Government, Advisory Opinion on Open Meetings Law, Oct. 27, 1983; 1980 Opns Atty Gen 145; see also, Feldman v Town of Bethel, 106 AD2d 695 ).