Case law

McGee v. Board of Education

13 A.D.2d 913 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 6, 1961

Chero v. Board of Parole

16 A.D.2d 846 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 1962

Hazard v. Board of Education

16 A.D.2d 858 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 11, 1962

Scott v. Board of Education

16 A.D.2d 1009 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 21, 1962

Lessin v. Board of Education

222 A.D. 667 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1927

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff against the defendant, The Board of Education. No opinion. Present — -Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Martin, O’Malley and Proskauer, JJ.; Martin, J., dissents.

Gregory v. Board of Education

222 A.D. 715 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1927

Genova v. Board of Regents

272 A.D.2d 1085 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 1947

Review, under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, of a determination made by the Board of Regents of the State of New York. Petitioner is a physician having an office and practicing his profession in Brooklyn. … The board determined that petitioner performed an illegal operation to produce an abortion upon one Martha Goldfarb in March, 1944, and his license to practice medicine was suspended for one year by order dated May 21, 1947

Christianson v. Board of Regents

271 A.D.2d 860 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 20, 1946

Benedittis v. Board of Education

271 A.D.2d 886 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 1946

Harman v. Board of Education

271 A.D.2d 926 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 31, 1947

Pendergast v. Board of Education

275 A.D.2d 690 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 3, 1949

Bogert v. Board of Education

96 N.Y.S. 1115 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1905

Bloomfield v. Board of Education

147 N.Y.S. 1099 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 17, 1914

Bloomfield v. Board of Education

147 N.Y.S. 1099 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 8, 1914

Meeteer v. Board of Education

138 N.Y.S. 1130 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 1912

Smith v. Board of Education

134 N.Y.S. 1146 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 4, 1912

Smith against the Board of Education. C. McIntyre, for appellant. J. E. O’Brien, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

Banks v. Board of Education

124 N.Y.S. 1109 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 1910

Beck v. Board of Sup'rs

53 N.Y.S. 156 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 18, 1898

In chapter 108 of the Laws of 1891 it was provided that the sheriff of Erie county shall receive, as compensation for his services, an annual salary, to be fixed by the board of supervisors of said county, prior to the election … The salary so fixed by said board of supervisors shall constitute the whole compensation which shall be allowed or paid to or received by said sheriff for all the official services performed by him. as sheriff in his attendance

O'Rourke v. Board of Education

115 A.D. 899 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1906

Campo v. Board of Education

211 A.D.2d 658 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 17, 1995

When a municipality takes action, after the signing of the contract, which makes the bargain impossible, it would be inequitable to require performance (Anderson v Steinway & Sons, 178 App Div 507 , affd 221 NY 639 ). … This is so even if the municipal action was void because a purchaser *660 will not be compelled to take property which he or she will be obligated to defend by litigation (Anderson v Steinway & Sons, supra).