Case law

Herald Co. v. Board of Parole

125 A.D.2d 985 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 19, 1986

affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with Special Term that parole revocation hearings are presumptively open to the public under the doctrine enunciated in Matter of Herald Co. v … Book Store v Cohen, 90 AD2d 935 ; 92-07 Rest, v New York State Liq. Auth., 80 AD2d 603 ). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Grow, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P.

DaSilva v. Zoning Board of Appeals

266 A.D.2d 458 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 22, 1999

A determination by a zoning board will not be set aside if it is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441, 444 ; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 , 599). … A court will find that a determination is supported by substantial evidence where “the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board’s determination” (Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384

Highpoint Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Estimate

67 A.D.2d 914 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 5, 1979

The Court of Appeals has distinguished special permits from variances as follows (Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. … Board of Stds. & Appeals, 255 N. Y. 126 ; Matter of Syosset Holding Corp. v. Schlimm, 4 A D 2d 766; Matter of Bar Harbour Shopping Center v. Andrews, 23 Mise 2d 894).

Prote Contracting Co. v. Board of Education

249 A.D.2d 178 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 28, 1998

Leave to amend pleadings is generally freely granted (Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-405 ) and we perceive no reason why the present application for leave should have been treated as excep *179 tional. … This is especially so since plaintiff, in opposing defendant’s motion.to amend, made no showing that permitting the proposed counterclaim would be prejudicial (see, City of New York v Cross Bay Contr.

Armil Realty Corp. v. Board of Estimate

66 A.D.2d 888 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 29, 1978

The Board of Estimate has a narrow scope of review under section 668 of the 1976 Charter (see Matter of Cotroneo v Klein, 62 AD2d 493 ). … This is a far more lenient standard than the business hardship requirement for obtaining the original variance (see Zoning Resolution, § 72-21 et seq.; Matter of Reed v Board of Stds. & Appeals of City of N.

Briscoe v. Teachers' Retirement Board

283 A.D. 1026 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 8, 1954

— -We agree with the determination of Special Term that under the law the comptroller of the City of New York was a member of the teachers’-retirement board ex officio and not chairman by virtue of his office. … Therefore, a new chairman must be elected and the board should proceed to take such step at its earliest convenience.

Gonzalez v. Board of Education of Yonkers

298 A.D.2d 358 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 7, 2002

Shell Oil Co., 283 AD2d 403 ; Goldblatt v LaShellda Maintenance Co., 278 AD2d 451 ; Lindeman v Vecchione Constr. … AD2d 391 ; Arsenicos v Westland S.

Farlow v. Town Board of Brookhaven

92 A.D.2d 938 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 28, 1983

A joint hearing was held before the Town Boards of Brookhaven and Southampton on September 30,1980. On December 16,1980 the Brookhaven Town Board voted against annexation. … A challenge to a governing board’s determination that annexation is not in the over-all public interest must be initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court by an affected governing board (General Municipal Law

Brown v. Manshul Realty Corp.

271 A.D.2d 222 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 28, 1946

(Landau v. Herts Drivurself Stations, Inc., 237 App. Div. 141 ; Great Northern R. Co. v. Fowler, 136 Fed. 118, 121 .) … (Farrington v. Harlem Savings Bank, 280 N. Y; 1; Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co., 132 App. Div. 553, 556 ; Landau v. Herts Drivurself Stations, Inc., 237 *224 App. Div. 141; Kirchner v. N. H. S. M. Co., 135 N.

Newbany Corp. v. Board of Assessors

153 A.D.2d 696 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 21, 1989

Investors v Board of Assessors ( 153 AD2d 656 [decided herewith]) and Matter of Bowery Sav. Bank v Board of Assessors ( 153 AD2d 679 [decided herewith]). … Investors v Board of Assessors, supra; see also, Vantage Petroleum v Board of Assessment Review, 91 AD2d 1037, 1038-1039 , affd 61 NY2d 695 , citing Matter of Sperry Rand Corp. v Board of Assessors, 77 AD2d 822 ).

Grier v. Board of Higher Education

86 A.D.2d 515 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 12, 1982

Baader v. Town Board of Aurelius

171 A.D.2d 1046 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 8, 1991

On June 8, 1989, the Town Board of the Town of Aurelius orally informed a member of the Cayuga County Planning Board (CCPB) of its intent to rezone the Raper property from RB (higher density residential) to I (industrial) … It follows that the proposed zoning change requires the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of the members of the Town Board.

Irondequoit Assembly of God v. Planning Board

244 A.D.2d 1002 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 19, 1997

We also note that, because petitioner challenges a decision of the Planning Board of the Town of Irondequoit, the court was required to dispose of the matter on the merits and determine all issues raised in the petition ( … Co. v Lillis, 124 AD2d 996, 997 ). We therefore remit the matter to Supreme Court for disposition on the merits. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.)

Linfield v. Board of Higher Education

65 A.D.2d 734 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 28, 1978

Boundy v. New York State Board

42 A.D.2d 972 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 15, 1973

Pittsford Gravel Corp. v. Zoning Board

42 A.D.2d 924 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 1973

Scimeca v. Board of Zoning Appeals

41 A.D.2d 836 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 2, 1973

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CP-LR to review a determination- of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals, dated February 8, 1972, which granted an area variance application by respondents Bdlu Custom Builders

Flanagan v. Board of Zoning Appeals

36 A.D.2d 955 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 10, 1971

Aisloff v. Board of Standards & Appeals

276 A.D.2d 907 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1950

Blum v. Board of Zoning & Appeals

3 A.D.2d 721 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 18, 1957