Case law

Board of Water Com'rs v. Quinn

81 N.Y.S. 1118 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 17, 1903

State Board of Pharmacy v. Matthews

122 A.D. 920 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1907

Strohli v. Zoning Board of Appeals

271 A.D.2d 612 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 17, 2000

The denial by the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Montebello (hereinafter the Board) of the petitioner’s application for a building permit was a proper exercise of its discretion and is supported by the … record (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135 ).

Harris v. Town Board of Riverhead

73 A.D.3d 922 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 11, 2010

Co. #1, LLC v Town Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 56 AD3d at 777-778; Matter of Oates v Village of Watkins Glen, 290 AD2d 758, 760-761 [2002]). … Town of Riverhead, 73 AD3d 931 [2010] [decided herewith]; Matter of Haber v Board of Estimate of City of N.Y., 33 AD2d 571, 572 [1969]), the petitioners failed to establish standing to assert their declaratory judgment causes

Wilds v. Board of Education

186 A.D. 472 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 7, 1919

Those are questions which were discussed in the majority opinion in Titusville Iron Co. v. City of New York ( 207 N. … Upon the contractor’s default and the due termination of his contract by the board of education as therein provided, the board of education became the lawful bailee of the plant and of the building material, with the right

Brown Shoe Co. v. Vandam Warehouse Co.

186 A.D. 718 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 1919

Jonas v. Board of Standards & Appeals

3 A.D.2d 668 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 14, 1957

In any event, the board’s determination was proper. The board had jurisdiction of the application which, under the circumstances presented, could properly be made by the intervener. … The board’s determination, therefore, may not be disturbed by the courts. (Cf. Matter of Levy V. Board of Stds. £ Appeals of the City of New York, 267 N. Y. 347 ; People ex rel. Hudson-Harlem Val. Tit. £ Mtge. Co. v.

Rhall v. Board of Education

40 A.D. 412 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1899

(Maxmilian v. Mayor, 62 N. Y. 165 ; Donovan v. Board of Education, 85 id. 117; Hughes v. County of Monroe, 147 id. 49; Hill v. City of Boston, 122 Mass. 344 ; Reynolds v. Board of Education, 33 App. Div. 88 .) … The case of Reynolds v. Board of Education ( 33 App. Div. 88 ) is directly in point and fenders a further discussion of the' question here jireseüted unnecessary.

Estate of Brown v. G. F. Hall & Co.

213 A.D. 837 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1925

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event, on the ground that there is no proof that decedent’s death was caused by an accidental injury arising out of his employment

Sengstacken v. Zoning Board of Appeals

87 A.D.2d 651 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 29, 1982

There is no authority in the instant matter for service upon the town clerk as a basis for obtaining jurisdiction over the board (see Matter of Beck v Goodday, 24 AD2d 1016 ). … The 30-day time requirement for institution of a proceeding against the zoning board of appeals (Town Law, § 267) is clearly a Statute of Limitations (see, e.g., South Woodbury Taxpayers Assn. v Town of Oyster Bay, 79 AD2d

Tantalo v. Zoning Board of Appeals

43 A.D.2d 793 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 1973

Town of Oyster Bay, 32 N Y 2d 78; Matter of Forrest v. Evershed, 7 N Y 2d 256, 261-262; Matter of Crossroads Recreation v. Broz, 4 N Y 2d 39, 44-45; Matter of Taxpayers’ Assn, of South East Oceanside v. … Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 301 N. Y. 215, 218 ; Matter of Gerling v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 6 A D 2d 247; Matter of Hagar v. Stohna, 28 Mise 2d 522; Matter of Chad Homes v.

Ferruggia v. Zoning Board of Appeals

5 A.D.3d 682 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 22, 2004

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Warwick, dated October 28, 2002, which, inter alia, granted variances with respect to real property … Pine Barrens Socy. v Town of Islip, 286 AD2d 683 [2001]; Matter of Karmel v White Plains Common Council, 284 AD2d 464, 465 [2001]; Manupella v Troy City Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 272 AD2d 761 [2000]; Matter of Artrip v Incorporated

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 ).

Greenbaum v. Board of Estimate

148 A.D.2d 92 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 6, 1989

Corp. v Board of Estimate, 67 NY2d 725, 727 ; Matter of Galin v Board of Estimate, 72 AD2d 114, 115 , affd 52 NY2d 869 .) … (Matter of Marchese v Koch, 120 AD2d 590, 591 ; Matter of Shiner v Board of Estimate, 95 AD2d 831, 832 .)

Parmadale Development, Inc. v. Planning Board

35 A.D.2d 904 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 5, 1970

Paden v. Planning Board of Mamakating

270 A.D.2d 626 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 9, 2000

Petitioners challenge a determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating granting respondent J.M.L. … of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 247-248 , affd 59 NY2d 849 ).

Bishop v. Board of Trustees

81 A.D.2d 1009 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1981

Upon review of this form the board decided that the construction and operation of the garage would not significantly affect the environment. … Although we recognize that a very low threshold of significance will trigger the need for the preparation of an environmental impact statement (H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev.

Brown v. 1580 St. John's Place, Inc.

45 A.D.2d 733 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 1974

People ex rel. Brown v. La Vallee

35 A.D.2d 656 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 6, 1970

Brown v. Augustine Automatic Rotary Engine Co.

190 A.D. 928 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1919