Case law

Rogan v. Sear-Brown Group

288 A.D.2d 823 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 2001

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs (see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988 ; Chase Manhattan Bank v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567 ; see also, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Brown Bark III, L.P. v. AGBL Enterprises, LLC

85 A.D.3d 699 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 7, 2011

Schwartz, 41 *700 NY2d 648, 652 [1977]; Opticare Acquisition Corp. v Castillo, 25 AD3d at 243 ). … Corp. v MasTec N. Am., Inc., 7 NY3d 624, 629 [2006]; Astoria Fed. Mtge. Corp. v Pellicane, 78 AD3d 622, 623 [2010]). Here, the loan documents unequivocally state that they are governed by Florida law.

Spaulding v. American Wood-Board Co.

68 N.Y.S. 945 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 8, 1901

Sprague v. Hotel Co., 68 Hun, 555 , 22 N. Y. Supp. 1090 .

Reister v. Town Board of Fleming

24 A.D.2d 548 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 25, 1965

(Town Law § 191; Matter of Floyd-Jones v. Town Bd., 249 N. Y. 398, 401 .) … (Matter of Ramsay v. Town Bd. of Hempstead, 241 App. Div. 83 .) (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Trial Term, dismissing the petition.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry and Del Vecehio, JJ.

Sullivan v. Board of Estimate & Apportionment

253 A.D. 591 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 1, 1938

In Matter of Nash v. Brooks ( 276 N. … (Matter of Slattery v. Board of Estimate & Apportionment, 271 N.

Madonia v. Board of Zoning Appeals

300 A.D.2d 588 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 23, 2002

and that he had misrepresented his ownership interest in the property at the time the application was pending before the Board (see Matter of Pioneer-Evans Co. v Garvin, 191 AD2d 1026, 1028 ; Matter of Hoerner v Tormey, … Corp. v Duncan, 251 AD2d 333 ; Matter of Armonas v Board of Zoning Appeals of Vil. of Lloyd Harbor, 246 AD2d 646 ; Matter of Colony Park v Malone, 25 Misc 2d 1072 ).

Property Clerk of the Police Department v. Brown

58 A.D.3d 452 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 13, 2009

The evidence at the hearing held pursuant to Krimstock v Kelly ( 306 F3d 40 [2d Cir 2002], cert denied 539 US 969 [2003]), established that Brown committed a drug-related offense from the subject vehicle less than 1,000 feet … Board of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville, 5 AD3d 496, 497-498 [2004]; see Matter of Cohen v Board of Appeals of Vil. of Saddle Rock, 297 AD2d 38 [2002], affd 100 NY2d 395 [2003]; see also CPLR 7803 [3] [court may vacate administrative

Board of Higher Education v. Cole

263 A.D. 777 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 26, 1941

New York determining that under section 890 of the Education Law he may exercise appellate jurisdiction over the acts of the board of higher education in discharging a teacher, Isabel M. … The board acts under the general control of the said Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education. (Education Law, § 1143.)

Curley v. Town Board of Ramapo

218 A.D.2d 799 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 28, 1995

At a subsequent meeting, the Town Board rejected the Hearing Officer’s findings and concluded that the petitioner had in fact committed an act of insubordination for which the Town Board, inter alia, suspended the petitioner … The petitioner contends, inter alia, that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Town Board’s finding that he committed an act of insubordination. We agree.

Empire Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Board

201 A.D.2d 425 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 24, 1994

’s decision (Matter of Bock v Cooperman, 89 AD2d 539 , affd on mem below 59 NY2d 776 ). … The IAS Court misinterpreted Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co. ( 171 AD2d 262 ). We did not hold in Arvatz that an insurer has a right to reopen a compensation hearing so that it may participate therein.

Town Board of Greenfield v. Ernst

27 A.D.3d 1037 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 30, 2006

Defendant appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter ZBA) contending that he was not in violation because he did not actually sell vehicles at the lot, but parked them there before moving them to his Saratoga business … Under such circumstances, Supreme Court properly relied upon the ZBA’s determination as a basis upon which to grant plaintiff summary judgment in this action (see Town of Coeymans v Malphrus, 160 AD2d 1178, 1179 [1990]).

Krueger v. Zoning Board of Appeals

48 A.D.2d 734 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 15, 1975

Upon denial by respondents, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Niskayuija, of a variance for construction of a home which, as proposed, was found by Special Term to be "comparable in appearance and quality” with other … In such circumstances, denial of a variance can be justified only by a showing by the zoning board that strict enforcement of the ordinance would serve a legitimate purpose (Matter of Fulling v Palumbo, 21 NY2d 30 ), and

Pitt v. Town Board of Ramapo

10 A.D.2d 958 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 1960

Board of Regents, 4 A D 2d 361, 364). Hence, the imposition of such excessive punishment is an abuse of discretion by respondent (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a; cf. People ex rel. Rigby v. Anderson, 198 App. … Masterson v. French, 110 N. Y. 494 ; People ex rel. Brown v. Greene, 106 App. Div. 230 , affd. 184 N. Y. 565 ).

DePaola v. Zoning Board of Appeals

226 A.D.2d 371 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 1, 1996

(See also, Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, 53 NY2d 254, 257 ; Matter of Otto v Steinhilber, 282 NY 71, 76 .) … It is well established that local zoning boards have substantial discretion in considering applications for use variances (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 ; Matter of Elwood Props. v Bohrer, supra).

White v. Devendorf

127 A.D. 791 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 1908

(Holt v. Tuite, 188 N. Y. 17 ; Rosseau v. Rouss, 180 id. 116 ; Hamlin v. Stevens, 177 id. 39 , 47 et seq.; Mahaney v. Carr, 175 id. 454.) … (Hamlin v. Stevens, 177 N. Y.39.)”

Parsons v. Zoning Board of Appeals

4 A.D.3d 673 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 19, 2004

judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered April 14, 2003 in Delaware County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul a determination of respondent Zoning Board … second floor storage room to a community meeting room, petitioner challenged the lack of action as a failure to comply with the local zoning ordinance due to an increase in the intensity of its use. * Respondent Zoning Board

Friedhaber v. Town Board of Sheldon

59 A.D.3d 1006 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 6, 2009

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the *1007 decision at Supreme Court (Friedhaber v Town Bd. of Town of Sheldon, 16 Misc 3d 1140[A] , 2007

King Service, Inc. v. Town Board

149 A.D.2d 806 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 6, 1989

In Nollan v California Coastal Commn. ( 483 US 825, 834 , quoting Agins v Tiburon, 447 US 255, 260 ), the Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle "that land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it 'substantially … Co. v Town of Southampton, 60 NY2d 70, 73 ).

Jones v. Zoning Board of Appeals

61 A.D.3d 1299 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 2009

He thereafter applied to respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oneonta for a use variance. … Following a hearing, the Board granted the use variance, prompting this proceeding by petitioners seeking its annulment.

Rayle v. Town of Cato Board

295 A.D.2d 978 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 14, 2002

, 246 AD2d 217, 221 ; see Matter of Boyles v Town Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 AD2d 688, 690 ; see also Pyne v Knaisch, 159 AD2d 999, 1000 ). … Respondent was initially presented with a handwritten letter requesting a PDD and referred the matter to the Town Planning Board (Planning Board).