Case law

Board of Education v. Celotex Corp.

151 A.D.2d 536 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 12, 1989

Finally, the plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause was properly granted (see, Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr.

Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Brown

112 A.D.3d 668 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 11, 2013

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the complaint, and the defendant Cleveland Brown (hereinafter the appellant) defaulted on the motion. … Corp. v United Humanitarian Relief Fund, 108 AD3d 619 , 620 [2013]; Discover Bank v Qader, 105 AD3d 892, 892 [2013]; JMP Pizza, LLC v 34th St.

Utter v. Zoning Board of Appeals

72 A.D.2d 659 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 25, 1979

Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. … Y. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598 ).

KMK Safety Consulting, LLC v. Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc.

72 A.D.3d 650 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 6, 2010

Brown Associates, Inc., was a Pennsylvania corporation, and it further provided, in relevant part, that *651 “[a]ny dispute between the parties related to this Contract shall be determined by the Pennsylvania Court of Common … Deutsch & Sons, Ltd. v Charbaut Am., Inc., 57 AD3d 529 [2008]; Koob v IDS Fin. Servs., 213 AD2d 26, 33 [1995]).

Brown v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

263 A.D. 872 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 5, 1942

(Dunne v. Contenti, 256 App. Div. 833 ; Braice v. Saunders, 262 id. 968 .) This case is distinguishable from Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. ( 254 App. Div. 26 ; affd., 279 N. … (Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377, 383 ; Haykl v. Drees, 247 App. Div. 90 ; Malloy v. Scott, 248 id. 882.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Parent Teacher Ass'n v. Board of Education

138 A.D.2d 108 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 23, 1988

Aubin v Flacke, 68 NY2d 66, 75 .) … (Matter of Ferrer v Quinones, 132 AD2d 277, 286 ; see also, James v Board of Educ., 42 NY2d 357, 366-367 .)

Pitts v. Buffalo Board of Education

51 A.D.2d 658 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 16, 1976

Luedeke v. Board of Police Commissioners

87 A.D.2d 669 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 4, 1982

Its acceptance of the version unfavorable to petitioner constitutes a determination of credibility which may not be disturbed upon review by this court (Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269 ; Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland … In the light of the board’s findings concerning petitioner’s conduct, the 60-day suspension is not so disproportionate as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233).

Mipor Associates v. Board of Assessors

262 A.D.2d 324 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 1, 1999

The Supreme Court properly determined that the 6-month extension embodied in CPLR 205 (a) applied to this proceeding, rather than the 15-day extension embodied in CPLR former 306-b (b) (see, Matter of Winston v Freshwater … v City of New York, 247 AD2d 342 ), and the appellants were properly directed to serve an answer (see, RPTL 712 [1]; Matter of Goldberg v Board of Assessment Review, 51 AD2d 744 ).

Brown v. Union Free School District No. 16

278 A.D. 701 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 12, 1951

This is a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to compel respondent Lindbloom (principal of the school district) to submit appellant’s name to the district superintendent of schools and to the board of education … (Matter of Millieker V. Board of Educ. of Central School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Carmel é Putnam Valley, 275 App. Div. 849 , affd. 300 N. Y. 634 .) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

C. D. Brown & Co. v. Darling & Co.

241 A.D. 790 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 15, 1934

Law, § 141; Brown & Co., Inc., v. Darling & Co., 238 App. Div. 487 .) … (O’Meara v. National Park Bank, 239 N. Y. 386 ; Dustan v. McAndrew, 44 id. 72.) It is established by the greater weight of evidence that whatever delay occurred was harmless to the defendant. All concur.

Cirrito v. Zoning Board of Appeals

197 A.D.2d 850 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 1, 1993

v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 176 AD2d 1210 ; Sanzone v City of Rome, 170 AD2d 977, 978 , lv dismissed 77 NY2d 988 ). … City of Rome, [supra, at] 978)” (Matter of Sasso v Gamble, 181 AD2d 988 ; see also, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445; Samon v City of Utica Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 191 AD2d 1004 ).

Halo v. New York City Loft Board

300 A.D.2d 77 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 10, 2002

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 1, 2000, which, in a proceeding by petitioner tenant to annul respondent Loft Board’s determination awarding a Rent Guidelines Board rent increase … No basis exists to disturb the Loft Board’s adoption of OATH’s finding that petitioner’s signature on the return receipt was genuine, and other findings of credibility (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444

Morse v. Town of Gardiner Planning Board

164 A.D.2d 336 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 13, 1990

More Beautiful Port Wash. v Town of N. … The fact that petitioners disagree with the alternative chosen by the Board does not prove that the Board did not take the requisite "hard look” (see, Akpan v Koch, 152 AD2d 113, 119 , affd 75 NY2d 561 ).

Young, Fenton, Kelsey & Brown v. Wein

111 A.D.3d 1194 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 27, 2013

WYFK was thereafter renamed plaintiff Young, Fenton, Kelsey & Brown, EC. (hereinafter the Young firm). … Urtz v Grow and $3,513.20 in Palmieri v Peterson, and, as so modified, affirmed. .

Stetson v. Board of Educacation

165 A.D. 476 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 31, 1914

(Steinson v. Board of Education of N. Y., 165 N. Y. 431 ; Bogert v. Board of Education, 106 App. Div. 56 ; Shaul v. Board of Education, 108 id. 19.) But it does not so appear. … (Collins v. City of New York, 151 App. Div. 618 ; Brown v. Board of Education, 70 Misc. Rep. 399 .) On every ground, therefore, the judgment in plaintiff’s favor was erroneous.

Board of Education v. Common Council

50 A.D.2d 138 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 1975

The parties stipulated that: on June 20, 1972 plaintiff Board of Education of the City of Syracuse (Board) appointed a citizens committee to recommend a site for the construction of a new elementary school which was to replace … The council is without authority to choose a different site itself (Kane-Cadillac Co. v City of Buffalo, 128 Misc 835, 837 ). In short, the Board proposes; the council disposes.

Miranda v. Erie County Board of Elections

59 A.D.2d 643 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 16, 1977

Petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his show cause order seeking to direct the Erie County Board of Elections to prohibit the appearance of these names. … Service upon the board of elections does not suffice (Matter of Pell, supra; Matter of Ullman v Power, supra). The 14-day period for instituting a proceeding ended on July 21, 1977.

Noe v. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners

141 A.D.2d 706 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 20, 1988

Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 US 345 ; Moose Lodge v Irvis, 407 US 163 ). … of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564, 577 ).

Pallante v. Board of Standards & Appeals

245 A.D. 729 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1935

In a certiorari proceeding to review the determination of the board of standards and appeals, order denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of certiorari on the ground that the application therefor was not timely … , reversed on the law with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, upon the authority of Ottinger v.