Case law

Maciuba v. Cheektowaga Town Board

170 A.D.2d 1003 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 1, 1991

David Brown Corp. v. Hewitt-Robins Inc.

23 A.D.2d 490 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 26, 1965

Plaintiff David Brown Corporation (Brown) a stockholder of approximately 15% of the shares of Hewitt-Robins Inc.

Claim of Wagoner v. Brown Manufacturing Co.

249 A.D. 886 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 14, 1937

He was a resident of the State of North Carolina, employed as a traveling salesman by the Brown Manufacturing Company, whose sole office and principal place of business is located at LeRoy, N. Y. … employed by correspondence, he never came to the New York office and while he was traveling in the south the injury occurred for which the claim is made and stress is laid on the case being similar to Matter of Hospers v.

Dando v. Binghamton Board of Education

111 A.D.2d 1060 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 20, 1985

It is not enough that the ailment is caused by the specific place in which the claimant happens to work (supra; Matter of Goldberg v 954 Marcy Corp., 276 NY 313, 318-319 ). … Resolution of such conflicts is within the sole province of the Board if its determination is based on substantial evidence (Matter of Yannon v New York Tel. Co., 86 AD2d 241, 243 , lv denied 57 NY2d 726 ).

Zeichner v. Board of Elections

160 A.D.2d 669 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 27, 1990

Grassel v. Board of Education

301 A.D.2d 498 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2003

York (hereinafter the Board). … Since the plaintiff failed to establish that former Board Chancellor Rudolph Crew was involved in the plaintiff’s suspension, the plaintiff’s 42 USC § 1983 claim against Crew was properly dismissed (see Al-Jundi v Estate

Weimer v. Board of Education

76 A.D.2d 1046 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 16, 1980

(Ricca v Board of Educ., 47 NY 385, 391 .) Just as under the provisions of the Civil Service Law, a municipality may not abolish a position by subterfuge (Switzer v Sanitary Dist. … Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, 454 ; Education Law, § 2510).

Aronsky v. Board of Education

150 A.D.2d 680 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 22, 1989

Indeed, their primary function is not punitive, but rather the determination of the fitness of the teachers against whom they may be brought to continue to carry on their professional responsibilities” (Matter of Bott v Board … In view of all the circumstances, the penalty was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ). Mangano, J.

Beltz v. Board of Elections

83 A.D.2d 826 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 27, 1981

In the absence of fraud, deception or confusion, such a construction should be avoided (Pilat v Sachs, 59 AD2d 515 , affd 42 NY2d 984 ; see Matter of Carusone v Varney, 277 App Div 326 , affd sub nom. … Barber v Varney, 301 NY 669 ; Matter of Cook v Zelazny, 49 AD2d 1036 ; Williams v Sclafani, 444 F Supp 906 , affd sub nom. Williams v Velez, 580 F2d 1046).

St. Pierre v. Board of Education

40 A.D.2d 71 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 16, 1972

Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New Rochelle ( 62 Misc 2d 274, 275-276 , affd. 36 A D 2d 615) and Matter of Lawson v. Board of Educ. Vestal Cent. School Dist. … No. 1 ( 62 Misc 2d 281 , affd. 35 A D 2d 878, mot. for lv. to app. den. 28 N Y 2d 485, app. dsmd. 28 N Y 2d 993), and Fuentes v. Shevin ( 407 U. S. 67 ), Goldberg v. Kelly ( 397 U. S. 254 ) and Sniadach v.

BROWN, LASEAN J., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 21, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LASEAN J. BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SCOTT T. GODKIN, UTICA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. … Ingram, 217 AD2d 986, 987; see generally People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 168-169, cert denied 419 US 1012).

Sposato v. Zoning Board of Appeals

287 A.D.2d 639 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 22, 2001

A zoning board’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference, and will not be overturned by the court unless it is unreasonable or irrational (see, Matter of Home Depot USA v Baum, 243 AD2d 476 ; … Oil Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 213 AD2d 486 ; Matter of Martens v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 195 AD2d 974 ).

Richards v. Board of Education

83 A.D.2d 191 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 19, 1981

This appeal involves the resubmission by a school board of defeated budget propositions to the voters. … 19, 1980 and the completion of the 1980-1981 school year, we will consider the merits of this appeal since the issue presented is significant, likely to be repeated and typically evades review (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v

Dramer v. Board of Education

134 A.D.2d 478 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 23, 1987

and a review of the record confirms, that the plaintiff set forth a meritorious cause of action and established a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, CPLR 2005) and an intent not to abandon this matter (cf., Ornstein v … Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Jackson v. Board of Trustees

2 A.D.3d 245 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 2003

In light of such evidence, we cannot overturn the determination of the Board of Trustees (Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139, 144-145 [1997]).

Bexson v. Board of Zoning & Appeals

28 A.D.2d 848 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 1967

If, however, a board forbids a use and no reasonable use for the property remains, it amounts to a taking of the property (Matter of Waldorf v. Coffey, 5 Misc 2d 80 ; Arverne Bay Constr. Co. v. Thatcher, 278 N. … In denying the application, the board acted within the power conferred upon it by law and arrived at a just result.

Marrero v. Board of Elections

112 A.D.2d 873 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 22, 1985

Sullivan v. Town Board of Riverhead

102 A.D.2d 113 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 1984

of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, p 802). … of Lee Realty Co. v Village of Spring Val., supra; Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, supra; Matter of Pleasant Val.

Goz v. Conciliation & Appeals Board

105 A.D.2d 670 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 1984

Bach v. Board of Zoning & Appeals

282 A.D. 879 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 13, 1953

The board had original jurisdiction to entertain the application (Roosevelt Field v. Town of North Hempstead, 277 App. … (Ellsworth Realty Co. v. Kramer, 268 App. Div. 824 .)