Case law

Anken v. Board of Education

42 A.D.2d 1031 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1973

As Justice Halpern wrote in Matter of Ross v. Wilson, 284 App. … Having appealed to him, they must accept his decision as conclusive (Barringer v. Powell, 230 N. Y. 37 ; Matter of Chapin v. Board of Educ., 291 N. Y. 241 ) ”.

Burger v. Board of Education

72 A.D.2d 603 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 29, 1979

The determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Arlington Teachers Assn, v Board of Educ., 72 AD2d 600 ). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Sear-Brown Group v. Jay Builders, Inc.

244 A.D.2d 966 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 19, 1997

., 38 Mass App Ct 545, 649 NE2d 791 ; TBG, Inc. v Bendis, 845 F Supp 1459, 1462 ; Ostalkiewicz v Guardian Alarm, 520 A2d 563 [RI]; cf., Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 377 ). … Likewise, a party may not rely upon a limitation of liability clause to insulate itself from damages caused by gross negligence (see, Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 81 NY2d 821, 823 ; Sommer v Federal Signal

Wilson v. Board of Education

257 A.D.2d 841 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 14, 1999

Board of Educ., 255 AD2d 661, 663 ; compare, Matter of Cleary v Board of Educ., 243 AD2d 949, 951 ; Matter of deMeurers v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 243 AD2d 54, 60 , lv denied 92 NY2d 807 ), “a procedure … reasonable person would recognize as an explanation or request requiring a formal decision by [petitioner] to join [the retirement system]” (Retirement and Social Security Law § 803 [b] [3] [iii]; see, Matter of Scanlan v

Jacobson v. Board of Education

265 A.D. 837 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1942

In our opinion Matter of Davis v. Board of Education ( 288 N. Y. 330 ), upholds the constitutionality of the statutes in question.

Matejko v. Board of Zoning Appeals

77 A.D.3d 949 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 2010

of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 612 [2004]). … Board of Appeals of Vil. of E.

Gladding v. Board of Education

136 A.D.2d 636 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 19, 1988

Therefore, this proceeding to compel appointment to a regular full-time tenured position was timely commenced (CPLR 217; Matter of Kaye v Board of Educ., 97 AD2d 794 ; Matter of Piaggone v Board of Educ., 92 AD2d 106 ). … Such a position is not a "vacancy” contemplated by Education Law § 2510 (see, Matter of Brewer v Board of Educ., 51 NY2d 855 ) which the petitioner was obligated to accept.

Engel v. Board of Elections

143 A.D.2d 291 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 25, 1988

Here, since this procedure had not been followed at the time the petition was filed, no cancellation of Biaggi’s registration occurred and thus the designating petition was not invalid for that reason (see, Nesci v Canary … Here, the parties do not dispute that the petition remained in the Board’s custody and control; therefore, it is clear that no court order was required (see also, Matter of Orange v Cohen, 268 NY 481 [new affidavits to petition

McElroy v. Board of Education

158 A.D. 219 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 1913

(Davies v. Mayor, etc., 93 N. Y. 250, 255 .) The plaintiff commenced an action on the 24th day of April, 1911. He was an architectural draftsman employed by the board of education of the city of New York. … (Ward v. Town of Southfield, 102 N. Y. 287, 292 ; Davies v. Mayor, etc., 93 id. 250, 253; Stilwell v. Carpenter, 59 id. 414, 423.)

Board of Supervisors v. Wilkin

260 A.D. 366 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 25, 1940

The rule, laid down in Perlmutter v. Greene ( 259 N. … County of Monroe v. Wiedman [Tennison], 260 App.

Spiegel v. Board of Assessors

161 A.D.2d 627 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 14, 1990

Corp. v Board of Assessors ( 143 AD2d 135, 139 ): "once the assessment roll is established, it is presumed to be correct and free of error (see, Matter of Sterling Estates v Board of Assessors, 66 NY2d 122 , rearg denied … Foundry Div. v Assessor of Town of Massena, 146 AD2d 851 ; Matter of Adirondack Mountain Reserve v Board of Assessors, 99 AD2d 600 , affd 64 NY2d 727 ).

Friedman v. Board of Education

256 A.D. 318 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 3, 1939

In so deciding the Special Term stated that it relied on the decision of this court in Feinstein v. Major Constructors, Inc. ( 245 App. Div. 530 ). … This construction is in conformity with our decision in Feinstein v. Major Constructors, Inc. (supra). In that case the rights of one Fredericks, an assignee, were involved.

Prior v. Board of Trustees

84 A.D.3d 964 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 10, 2011

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the City of New York Fire Department Pension Fund, which awarded Doreen Noone benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §

Board of Assessors v. Hammer

181 A.D.2d 885 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 1992

We note that the substantive arguments the appellants *886 attempt to raise in this proceeding have been raised in Matter of Cipollone v City of White Plains ( 181 AD2d 887 [decided herewith]), and we have found them to be

Marin v. Board of Elections

111 A.D.2d 489 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 1985

Here, as in Town of Islip Town Committee v Leo ( 71 AD2d 624 ) , the issue of organization meeting regularity can be addressed in a dispassionate manner. … Special Term properly dismissed the petition for the failure to name necessary parties (see, Matter of Greenspan v O’Rourke, 27 NY2d 846 ; Matter of Sahler v Callahan, 92 AD2d 976 ). This defect is jurisdictional.

Bonfield v. Board of Education

71 A.D.2d 604 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 1979

We note, however, that had we been able to reach the merits of the proceeding, the appellant would have been entitled to relief under this court’s decision in Matter of Schlosser v Board of Educ. ( 62 AD2d 207 , affd 47 NY2d

People v. Brown

13 A.D.2d 872 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 23, 1961

The right to a speedy trial may be. waived (People v. Prosser, 309 N. Y. 353 ) and this may occur by the failure of the defendant “ to raise the point in time ” (People v. White, 2 N Y 2d 220, 224). In People v. … Piscitello (7 N Y 2d 387, 383) where the indictment was dismissed because defendant did not have a speedy trial, the principle of waiver of such a right by failure to make a motion, passed upon in People v.

Schachenmayr v. Board of Assessors

263 A.D.2d 731 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1999

Board of Assessors, 227 AD2d 813 ). … Board of Assessors, supra).

McFerran v. Board of Education

21 A.D.2d 944 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 1964

At a regular meeting of the board held on January 15, 1963 cognizance was taken of their preferment, a hearing thereon scheduled for January 29, 1963 and the clerk of the board directed to give notice thereof to the teacher … At the same time he addressed a letter to the board enclosing the resignation.

Hannafey v. Board of Trustees

294 A.D.2d 365 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 2002

Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 281 AD2d 549 ; Matter of Unal v Peterson, 261 AD2d 551 ). … Here, the denial of the petitioners’ application was rationally based and, accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed (see Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 43 NY2d 801