Case law

Lenz Hardware, Inc. v. Board of Education

24 A.D.3d 1278 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 2005

The timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against a school district (see Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 547-548 [1983]; see also Matter … of McClellan v Alexander Cent.

Sangermano v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

290 A.D.2d 498 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 22, 2002

779 ; Doyle v Board of Educ. of Deer Park Union Free School Dist., 230 AD2d 820 ; Scopelliti v Town of New Castle, 210 AD2d 308 ; Hoger v Thomann, 189 AD2d 1048 ). … 553 ; Gorman v Sachem Cent.

Flacke v. Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Board

87 A.D.2d 898 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 1, 1982

Petitioner’s assertion that the board exceeded its scope of review and merely substituted its judgment for that of petitioner is rejected. … The scope of review of the board is limited by subdivision 2 of section 24-1103 of the statute.

Leon Petroleum, LLC v. Board of Trustees

309 A.D.2d 804 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 14, 2003

Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra). … Trust v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra; Matter of Pelham Esplanade v Board of Trustees of Vil. of Pelham Manor, 77 NY2d 66 [1990]).

Wayland v. Public Employment Relations Board

61 A.D.2d 674 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 6, 1978

As with other public employers, the village should be given sufficient latitude to manage its affairs efficiently and effectively (see Matter of Young v Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 31 ). … 29 NY2d 433 ; Matter of Sag Harbor Union Free School Dist. v Helsby, 54 AD2d 391 ).

Nichol v. Planning Board of Manlius

28 A.D.2d 1077 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 1967

; that had the Planning Board submitted its recommendation to the Village Board the Village Board could have acted prior to June 14, 1966, the date the ordinance was amended. … Special Term in arriving at its decision invoked the rule of Matter of Dubow v. Ross ( 254 App.

Vadney v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

93 A.D.2d 935 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 1983

The division dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and the appeal board affirmed. This proceeding ensued. … In these circumstances, the investigation conducted by the division was sufficient, and its finding of no probable cause was not arbitrary or unreasonable and was properly affirmed by the board (Matter of Fellows v Capital

Matter of Brown v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

190 A.D.3d 969 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 27, 2021

Matter of Brown v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. ( 2021 NY Slip Op 00429 ) Matter of Brown v New York City Health & Hosps. … IANNACCI PAUL WOOTEN, JJ. 2018-12136 (Index No. 504254/17) [*1]In the Matter of Tysheema Brown, appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, respondent. Zucker & Regev, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Gary A.

Matter of Cruz v. Buffalo Board of Education

138 A.D.3d 1316 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 2016

evidence (see Matter of Poulton v Griffin Mfg. … see Matter of Borgal v Rochester-Genesee Regional Transp.

Sterling Idea Ventures v. Plannning Board

173 A.D.2d 475 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 6, 1991

Andrew v Barwick, 67 NY2d 510, 519-520 , cert denied 479 US 985 , quoting Abbott Labs. v Gardner, 387 US 136, 152 ), and the March 22, 1989, letter cannot be considered a final administrative action. … Further, there is no indication in the record that the petitioner sought a variance from the new zoning code before initiating this proceeding (see, Williamson Planning Commn. v Hamilton Bank, 473 US 172, 186 ).

Save Our-Open Space v. Planning Board

256 A.D.2d 581 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1998

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of South Nyack, dated June 18, 1997, which issued a negative declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality … of Baker v Town of Roxbury, 220 AD2d 961, 963 ; see also, Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown, 234 AD2d 881, 884 ).

Ambrose v. Community School Board No. 30

48 A.D.2d 654 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1975

v Board of Educ. of City of N. … The above authorities have not been overruled, insofar as the situation at bar is concerned, by Board of Regents v Roth ( 408 US 564 ) and Perry v Sindermann ( 408 US 593 ) (Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of City of N.

Claim of Newman v. Public Oversight Board

127 A.D.2d 302 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 30, 1987

We agree with the Board. … Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. To the extent that Carlin v Lockport Paper Co. ( 214 App Div 354 ) is to H the contrary, it is overruled. H

Hunter v. Zoning Board of Appeals

133 A.D.2d 84 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 3, 1987

J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

194 Main, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

91 A.D.3d 876 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 24, 2012

Partners v Board of Assessors, 82 AD3d 988 [2011]), as it is not being put to use in a manner which is materially beneficial to the petitioner (cf. … Co. v Macejka, 117 AD2d 896, 897 [1986]; see Matter of Miriam Osborn Mem. Home Assn. v Assessor of City of Rye, 275 AD2d 716, 717 [2000]).

Wilcox v. Zoning Board of Appeals

112 A.D.2d 40 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 4, 1985

Steele v. Town of Salem Planning Board

200 A.D.2d 870 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 20, 1994

Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 570 ). … The Board’s conclusion that the project would have no significant impact on the environment is a rational one which is supported by the record (see, Matter of Jaffee v RCI Corp., supra; see also, Matter of Hare v Molyneaux

Rush v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

108 A.D.2d 805 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 11, 1985

On appeal, the respondent State Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed. … Community Coll, v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 NY2d 69, 75 ; Matter of Murapa v Kramarsky, 88 AD2d 1009 ).

Brown v. Gelat Holding Corp.

277 A.D.2d 1140 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 18, 1950

(Stevens v. Bridge Auto Benting Gorp., 262 App. Div. 872 .) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Board of Education v. Celotex Corp.

105 A.D.2d 994 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 1984