Case law

Ray v. Zoning Board of Appeals

282 A.D.2d 464 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 2, 2001

Pursuant to East Hampton Village Code § 57-7 (D) (1) (b), the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of East Hampton (hereinafter the Village Board) may issue special permits for “[t]he conversion of an existing nonconforming … The determination of the Village Board that the proposed use is “more conforming” is supported by substantial evidence in the record and has a rational basis (see, Matter of Watral v Scheyer, 223 AD2d 711 ).

Headriver v. Town Board of Riverhead

307 A.D.2d 314 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 21, 2003

Corp. v Town of N. Salem, supra). With respect to the proceedings before the Town Board, the petitioner contends that the Town Board had a duty to “take final action on the special permit application.” … However, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Town Board satisfied its duty to act when it voted on the application (see Matter of Aloya v Planning Bd. of Town of Stony Point, supra).

Anello v. Zoning Board of Appeals

226 A.D.2d 458 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 8, 1996

Here, the petitioner did apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Dobbs Ferry (hereinafter the Board). However, after a hearing, the Board denied the application for the variance. … We find that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious, and was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 ; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309

Acinapuro v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

89 A.D.2d 329 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 1, 1982

Appellants and BOCES maintain that, construing the statute narrowly as we are obliged to do (see, e.g., Pauk v Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. … At a minimum, however, any such waiver must be a knowing one, freely given (see Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, 455 ).

Johnson v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

30 A.D.3d 201 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 2006

Some substantiated findings by the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), such as the findings related to petitioner’s actions in 1995, do not result in formal discipline. … Liberties Union v State of New York, 4 NY3d 175, 184 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Knickerbocker Field Club v. Site Selection Board

41 A.D.2d 539 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 8, 1973

Melbraun, 21 A D 2d 830; Schoonmaker V. Schoonmaker, 21 A D 2d 777). … Realty Molding Co. v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 32 A D 2d 312, 315, affd. 26 N Y -2d 1002).

Frascone v. Rockland County Board of Elections

87 A.D.3d 667 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 17, 2011

Under the circumstances of this case, there was no basis for the Rockland County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board of Elections) to reconsider the sufficiency of the five signatures in question on this appeal. … Lawson, 298 AD2d 610, 611 [2002]; see also Matter of Krueger v Richards, 59 NY2d 680, 682-683 [1983]; Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620, 621 [1979]; Matter of Jackson v Stevens, 185 AD2d 960, 960-961 [1992]).

Bockeno v. New York State Parole Board

227 A.D.2d 751 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 9, 1996

He argues that the Board did not consider the appropriate factors in making its determination and that the denial constitutes double jeopardy. … v New York State Bd. of Parole, 202 AD2d 940 ).

Van Nostrand v. Board of Assessors

139 A.D.2d 790 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 7, 1988

Supreme Court held that the application to the Town Planning Board did not constitute a change in use. … petitioner commenced an action against the town claiming, inter alia, that the decision not to repair the bridge and to abandon the road left his parcel landlocked and amounted to a de facto condemnation (see, Van Nostrand v

Springer v. Zoning Board of Appeals

109 A.D.2d 888 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 25, 1985

The frontage requirement of the Zoning Ordinance had been in effect since 1959 (see, Matter of Cherry Hill Homes v Barbiere, 28 NY2d 381 ). … P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Winston v. Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Board

254 A.D.2d 363 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 13, 1998

Fisherman’s Assn. v Williams, 139 AD2d 234, 238 ). … The choice of conflicting expert testimony rests in the discretion of the administrative agency (see, Matter of Power Auth. v Williams, 101 AD2d 659 ).

Claim of Johnson v. Board of Education

33 A.D.2d 647 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 30, 1969

of claim by acts done within the 90-day period upon which a claimant may justifiably rely, such as asking for a list of special damages, offer to talk settlement and arranging for a physical examination (Matter of Daley v. … Bank v. Kaplan, 28 A D 2d 1159, 1160).

Matter of Brown v. New York City Tr. Auth.

2026 NY Slip Op 01356 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 11, 2026

Matter of Brown v New York City Tr. Auth. ( 2026 NY Slip Op 01356 ) Matter of Brown v New York City Tr. … LOVE, JJ. 2024-06805 (Index No. 500479/24) [*1]In the Matter of Melba Brown, appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, et al., respondents-respondents, et al., respondent.

Matter of Pettus v. Board of Directors

2019 NY Slip Op 1174 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 19, 2019

Matter of Pettus v Board of Directors ( 2019 NY Slip Op 01174 ) Matter of Pettus v Board of Directors 2019 NY Slip Op 01174 Decided on February 19, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law … M-4168 - Pettus v Board of Directors Motion granted to the extent of restraining and enjoining petitioners from filing any papers in this court that have any relation to this matter without prior leave of this Court.

Flacke v. Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Board

77 A.D.2d 66 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 23, 1980

Appellant argues that the holdings expanding standing in Matter of Fritz v Huntington Hosp. ( 39 NY2d 339 ), Matter of Dairylea Coop, v Walkley ( 38 NY2d 6 ) and Boryszewski v Brydges ( 37 NY2d 361 ) require a finding that … Standing has been denied, to public officials in situations similar to the one in which the Commissioner now finds himself (Board of Educ. v Town of Islip, 15 AD2d 789 ; Matter of City of New York v New York Univ., 3 AD2d

Smart Workout, Inc. v. Environmental Control Board

79 A.D.3d 492 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 2010

Thus, the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and must be confirmed, (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]; cf. … Matter of Sulzer v Environmental Control Bd. of City of N.Y., 165 AD2d 270, 280 [1991]). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Eccles v. Zoning Board of Appeals

200 A.D.2d 570 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 10, 1994

In the absence of any determination denying an application for a building permit, the Zoning Board of Appeals has no power to grant a variance (see, Matter of Moriarty v Planning Bd., 119 AD2d 188 ). … Rather, approval of a subdivision plat is a function within the province of the local planning board (see, Matter of Moriarty v Planning Bd., supra).

Blake v. Planning Board of Philipstown

21 A.D.3d 486 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 8, 2005

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Planning Board’s interpretation was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and is supported by the record (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304 [2002]; Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva … , 89 NY2d 411 [1996]; Matter of Savetsky v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Southampton, 5 AD3d 779 [2004]; Matter of Laidlaw Waste Sys. v Planning Bd. of Town of Islip, 305 AD2d 413 [2003]).

Claim of Merrin v. Town Board

48 A.D.2d 992 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 26, 1975

Nyquist ( 37 NY2d 182 ); Matter of Shore Haven v New York State Liq. … Auth. ( 37 NY2d 187 ); Matter of Butterly & Green v Lomenzo, ( 36 NY2d 250 ); Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck ( 34 NY2d 222 ).

People ex rel. Brown v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

67 A.D.2d 1108 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 28, 1979

The board’s statement, other than the reference to "a strong recommendation from the D.A. of Niagara County” (cf. … Matter of Ebbs v Regan, 54 AD2d 611 ) satisfies the standard set forth in Matter of Watkins v Caldwell ( 54 AD2d 42 ; see Matter of Jackson v Bombard, 62 AD2d 1000 ).