Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.43s
Condon v. Board of Higher Education
286 A.D. 804 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 7, 1955
Cited 0 timesPublishedHines v. State Board of Parole
267 A.D. 881 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 21, 1944
Proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review the determination of the State Board of Parole in denying appellant’s release from prison on parole. … Section 214 of the Correction Law provides only for personal appearance of the prisoner before the Board, before release, for the purpose of personal examination and verification of records. Present — Close, P.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHalfmoon Bridge Co. v. Canal Board
163 A.D. 76 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1914
Cited 0 timesPublishedBoard of Water Supply v. Foster
257 A.D. 1061 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 11, 1939
Cited 0 timesPublishedRaskin v. Board of Higher Education
5 A.D.2d 978 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 10, 1958
Cited 0 timesPublishedBoard of Higher Education v. Carter
15 A.D.2d 769 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 23, 1962
Cited 0 timesPublishedOnteora Club v. Board of Assessors
16 A.D.2d 1016 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 22, 1962
Cited 0 timesPublishedVerstandig's Florist, Inc. v. Board of Appeals
229 A.D.2d 851 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 1996
We are also mindful that the public policy is to restrict nonconforming uses in order to eliminate them (see, Matter of Oreiro v Board of Appeals, 204 AD2d 964, 965 ). … Maloy, Inc. v Town Bd., 92 AD2d 1056 ).
Cited 13 timesPublishedPekar v. Town of Veteran Planning Board
58 A.D.2d 703 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 23, 1977
The very purpose of the statute is to avoid administrative delay (Matter of Castle Estates v Hubbard, 52 Mise 2d 774; see, also, 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 15.07). … Failure of the appellant planning board to act within 45 days of the submission resulted in approval by operation of law (Matter of Fusaro v Ziemba, 46 AD2d 688 ; Matter of Wallkill Manor v Coulter, 40 AD2d 828 , affd 33
Cited 6 timesPublishedBrandman v. Board of Standards & Appeals
216 A.D.2d 201 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 27, 1995
Cited 0 timesPublishedBoard of Education v. State Education Department
135 A.D.2d 903 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 3, 1987
Because this determination was rational, it is entitled to deference from this court (see, Kurcsics v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 NY2d 451 ). … In our previous decision, we merely reviewed the sufficiency of the pleadings and determined that petitioner had stated a claim for relief, which could be sustained only upon proper proof (Matter of Board of Educ. v State
Cited 5 timesPublished274 A.D. 902 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 1948
Order denying application by petitioners for an order directing the Board of Elections of Westchester County to place the name of petitioner William K.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFallon v. Board of Higher Education
9 A.D.2d 766 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 2, 1959
reappointment for a fourth year of service (the decision not to recommend having been made after April 1, 1958), and despite the fact that such failure to notify was in contravention of section 146 of the by-laws of the Board … The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ. [14 Mise 2d 9.]
Cited 2 timesPublished274 A.D. 354 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 1948
(Matter of Cowles v. Board of Regents, 266 App. Div. 629 , affd. without opinion, 292 N. Y. 650 ). Although, as was pointed out by Mr. … Determination of the Board of Regents annulled on the law and facts, with $50 costs and disbursements.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCaldor, Inc. v. Board of Assessors
104 A.D.2d 883 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 9, 1984
— In proceedings pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law to review the 1982 and 1983 assessments on the subject real property, the Board of Assessors and the Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Pelham … Stores v Assessor of Town of Concord, 102 AD2d 9 ). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Boyers, JJ., concur.
Cited 2 timesPublishedKolt v. Zoning Board of Appeals
159 A.D.2d 625 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 19, 1990
This being the case, our review is limited to whether the respondent’s determination was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 ; Human Dev. … Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 AD2d 135 ). We further agree with the Supreme Court that there was substantial evidence that the petitioners’ variance had lapsed.
Cited 1 timesPublishedBonanno v. Town Board of Babylon
148 A.D.2d 532 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 13, 1989
Caso, 72 AD2d 797 ) and where there is an inordinate delay in acting (Matter of Stuart & Stuart v New York State Liq. … unreasonable (Howell v Benson, 105 Misc 2d 757 ).
Cited 2 timesPublishedR.A.C. Group, Inc. v. Board of Education
21 A.D.3d 243 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 25, 2005
Particularly, the Supreme Court noted that New York City Charter § 2606 authorized the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board (hereinafter the board) to impose specific penalties, such as misdemeanor criminal charges, … Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., supra at 127; Wowaka & Sons v Pardell, supra at 6).
Cited 13 timesPublishedWills v. Planning Board of Newfane
159 A.D.2d 999 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 1990
Cited 0 timesPublishedLebow v. Village of Lansing Planning Board
151 A.D.2d 865 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1989
Village Law § 7-740 provides that a proceeding seeking review of a planning board decision must be commenced within 30 days after the decision is filed in the office of the planning board. … Planning Bd., 83 AD2d 698 , lv denied 54 NY2d 610 ; Ecology Action v Van Cort, 99 Misc 2d 664, 668-671 ).
Cited 13 timesPublished
Ask Donna