Case law

Rigaud v. Crime Victims Compensation Board

94 A.D.2d 602 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 1983

Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 ; Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222 ,230,231.) … The legislation constitutes a limited departure from the common law and should be strictly construed (Matter of Gryziec v Zweibel, 74 AD2d 9 ).

Brown v. Lutheran Medical Center

107 A.D.3d 837 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2013

In March 2007, the plaintiffs wife, Sharline Brown, allegedly sustained injuries as a result of the defendants’ medical malpractice. … Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 249 [1980]; George v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170, 174-175 [1979]; Egan v Neghavi, 84 AD3d 1014, 1014 [2011]).

Parisella v. Zoning Board of Appeals

188 A.D.2d 712 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1992

The use variance expired by its own terms on May 10, 1991 (see, Guziec v Woods, 171 AD2d 1082 ) and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 ). … of Malone, 170 AD2d 896, 897 ; Engert v Phillips, 150 AD2d 752, 753-754 ).

Brown v. Steamship Terminal Operating Corp.

242 A.D. 784 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1934

(Hart v. Hudson River Bridge Company, 80 N. Y. 622 ; Swistak v. Erie Railroad, Co., 208 App. Div. 553 ; affd., 239 N. Y. 549 ; Warner v. New York, Ontario & Western Railway Co., 209 App. Div. 211 .) … (Nalli v. Peters, 241 N. Y. 177 ; Orlando v. Pioneer B. T. Supply Co., 239 id. 342.) Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Brown v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

42 A.D. 548 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1899

(Sisco v. L. & H. R. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 296 .) … (Wallace v. Cent. Vt. R. R. Co., 138 N. Y. 302 ; McGovern v. Standard Oil Co., 11 App. Div. 588 .)

Dudley v. Town Board of Prattsburgh

59 A.D.3d 1103 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 6, 2009

In any event, we conclude that petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing that the Town Board’s determination was “without foundation and baseless” (Matter of Butler v Onondaga County Legislature, 39 AD3d 1271 … economic development” constitute an adequate basis for the Town Board’s determination that the condemnation would serve a public use or benefit (Sunrise Props. v Jamestown Urban Renewal Agency, 206 AD2d 913 [1994], lv denied

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.

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.

Jensen v. Zoning Board of Appeals

130 A.D.2d 549 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 11, 1987

Co., 62 NY2d 494; cf., Matter of Venes v Community School Bd. of Dist. 26, 43 NY2d 520 ). … Gravel Co. v Town of Ogden, 55 NY2d 790 , revg 81 AD2d 1019 ; Matter of Blanco v Blum, 67 AD2d 947, 948 ).

Bechtle v. Board of Supervisors

81 A.D.2d 571 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 6, 1981

Sweeney v. Board of Education

112 A.D.2d 240 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 8, 1985

Board of Coop. … Matter of Alper v Gaffney, 73 AD2d 644 ; McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 9122 [4] [b] [New York State Defense Emergency Act § 22; L 1951, ch 784, § 22 as amended]). Brown, J.

Residential Board of Managers v. Berman

213 A.D.2d 206 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 9, 1995

areas” since plaintiffs claims "cannot be based on a breach of the statutory warranty of habitability”, does not mean that a unit owner is precluded from interposing any defenses at all to an action for foreclosure even v/ … Therefore, Frisch v Bellmarc Mgt. is distinguishable from the matter herein. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Inguant v. Board of Zoning Appeals

304 A.D.2d 831 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 28, 2003

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v Green Constr. … Matter of Staten Corp. v Trotta, 278 AD2d 328 [2000]; Matter of Wantagh Woods Neighborhood Assn. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 208 AD2d 935 [1994]; Matter of Rider v Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 172

Gray v. Board of Education

41 A.D.2d 739 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1973

In our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, petitioner was entitled to a hearing prior to the termination of his employment (Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 ). … Petitioner’s employment was in fact terminated at the meeting of the respondent Board of Education on January 18, 1973. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Joseph v. Board of Trustees

138 A.D.2d 378 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 7, 1988

of examiners of the board of education” (emphasis added). … The TRS characterized the interim acting positions, which were created in response to temporary vacancies which occurred subsequent to a Federally ordered revamping of the Board’s hiring procedures (see, Chance v Board of

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. Lutheran Medical Center

107 A.D.3d 837 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2013

In March 2007, the plaintiffs wife, Sharline Brown, allegedly sustained injuries as a result of the defendants’ medical malpractice. … Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 249 [1980]; George v Mt. Sinai Hosp., 47 NY2d 170, 174-175 [1979]; Egan v Neghavi, 84 AD3d 1014, 1014 [2011]).

Stockfield v. Town Board of Somers

87 A.D.2d 633 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 22, 1982

The action of the town board sought to be reviewed by petitioners was essentially legislative in nature (see Matter of Amerada Hess Corp. v Lefkowitz, 82 AD2d 882, and the cases cited therein, mot for lv to app den by this … The appropriate vehicle for review, in such case, is an action for a declaratory judgment and not a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Matter of Amerada Hess Corp. v Lefkowitz, supra).

People ex rel. Brown v. Martin

264 A.D. 746 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 29, 1942

Jobissy v. Murphy, 244 App. Div. 834 ; affd., 268 N. Y. 695 .) The order appealed from should be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present —1 Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Schenck and Foster, JJ.