Case law

Spence v. New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets

154 A.D.3d 1234 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 26, 2017

, 192 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1183 [2004]; see also Matter of Santer v Board of Educ. of E. … Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 336 F3d at 192, quoting Pickering v Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 US at 568 ).

Sessa v. Board of Assessors of North Elba

46 A.D.3d 1163 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 20, 2007

Board of Assessors, Town of Hurley, 257 AD2d *1165 958, 960 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 813 [1999]; see also Matter of Nicola v Board of Assessors of Town of N. … Co. v Springer, 130 AD2d 493, 493 [1987]; Matter of Rizika v Board of Assessors of Vil. of Herkimer, 62 Misc 2d 774, 776 [1970]; see also Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d at 720 n 2).

Park v. Board of Regents of University

222 A.D.2d 946 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1995

the first time in this proceeding) (cf., People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940 ; People v Haupt, 71 NY2d 929, 931 ). … These substitutions, in and of themselves, do not mandate a new hearing or dismissal of the charges (see, Matter of Láveme v Sobol, 149 AD2d 758, 761 , Iv denied 74 NY2d 610 ; cf., Matter of Briggs v Board of Regents, 188

Kaplan v. New York City Loft Board

159 A.D.2d 439 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 29, 1990

this *440 CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about June 29, 1989, challenging a determination by respondent Loft Board

Town Board of Town v. Continental Insurance

213 A.D.2d 475 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 13, 1995

Co. v North Riv. Ins. Co., 79 NY2d 576 ; Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436 ; Town of Smithtown v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 191 AD2d 426 ). Here there was no such compliance. … Co. v North Riv. Ins. Co., supra; Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., supra; Town of Smithtown v National Union Fire Ins. Co., supra; Reliance Ins. Co. v Garsart Bldg. Corp., 131 AD2d 828 ).

Local No. 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America v. Brown

26 A.D.2d 90 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 14, 1966

Such a provision does not authorize expulsion of a local (Schrank v. Brown, 192 Misc. 603). All of the members of Local 1 have an undivided interest in its assets (see Bradley v. O’Hare, supra, p. 28; 7 C. J. … Mechanics v. Emery, 219 Pa. 461 ).

Malaga v. Suffolk County Board of Elections

66 A.D.3d 902 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 20, 2009

A proceeding to validate a nominating petition is governed by the statute of limitations set forth in Election Law § 16-102 (2) *903 (see Matter of McDonough v Scannapieco, 65 AD3d 647 [2009]; Matter of Wilson v Garfinkle … , 5 AD3d at 410 ; see Matter of Green v Mahr, 230 AD2d 873, 874 [1996]).

Board of Education v. Spencerport Teachers Ass'n

57 A.D.2d 709 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 7, 1977

Simonsen v. Zoning Board of Appeals

24 A.D.3d 787 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2005

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated July 8,1999, which granted the application of Catherine Nettesheim and Peter Nettesheim … Such counsel fees were not incurred “by reason of the injunction” (CPLR 6312 [b]; see Cross Props. v Brook Realty Co., 76 AD2d 445, 458-459 [1980]; cf.

Kaye v. New York City Loft Board

162 A.D.2d 208 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 14, 1990

Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ). … Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 ).

BROWN, RICHARD M. v. MILLER, JARED PRESTON

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 24, 2017

BROWN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JARED PRESTON MILLER AND LYNNETTE F. MILLER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. … Mulvey, 126 AD3d 1323, 1324; French v Symborski, 118 AD3d 1251, 1251, lv denied 24 NY3d 904).

Leith Construction Co. v. Board of Education

75 A.D.2d 615 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 1980

v Board of Educ., 66 AD2d 588 ), and as such should be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. … In April, 1975 the defendant’s board of review determined that the plaintiff was an "irresponsible bidder” because it had submitted fraudulent documents in connection with an unrelated proposal.

Brown v. 2732 Bainbridge Assoc., LLC

89 A.D.3d 410 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 1, 2011

constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition, that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injury, or that the injury resulted from a normal fluctuation in the water temperature in the bathtub (see Boderick v

Philipstown Dirt Roads Ass'n v. Town Board

246 A.D.2d 656 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 26, 1998

The primary purpose of SEQRA is “to inject environmental considerations directly into governmental decision making” (Matter of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v Board of Estimate, 72 NY2d 674, 679 ; Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 569 … Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 417 , supra; quoting Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258, 265 ; see, Matter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742 ).

Board of Managers of Acorn Ponds at North Hills Condominium No. 3 v. Board of Assessors

197 A.D.2d 620 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 18, 1993

Accordingly, it must be concluded that "similarly situated [taxpayers were] treated uniformly” (Foss v City of Rochester, 65 NY2d 247 , 256; see, Trump v Chu, 65 NY2d 20 ; cf., Matter *622 of Krugman v Board of Assessors … Such evidence is lacking in the instant case (see also, Nordlinger v Hahn, 505 US —, 112 S Ct 2326 ). Similarly, the Supreme Court incorrectly relied on Matter of Krugman v Board of Assessors (supra).

Schneider v. Zoning Board of Appeals

16 A.D.3d 591 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 21, 2005

The determination was rationally based and was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 , 384 n 2 [1995]). … Further, the determination of the Zoning Board was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Dalo v. New York City Loft Board

157 A.D.2d 461 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 9, 1990

(Anthony v New York City Loft Bd., 122 AD2d 725, 726-727 [1st Dept 1986] [emphasis added]; see also, Matter of Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants v New York City Loft Bd., 66 NY2d 298 [1985].) … (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 [1974]) and, therefore, must be confirmed.

Fanelli v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board

90 A.D.2d 756 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 30, 1982

New York County (Blangiardo, J.), entered February 19, 1982, reversed, on the law, without costs, the application denied, the petition dismissed and the determination of appellant New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board … Graves, 109 Misc 2d 672 ; Alden v Callahan, 65 Misc 2d 183 ).

Kelsky v. Town of Lewisboro Planning Board

215 A.D.2d 483 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 8, 1995

Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 571 ; see also, ECL 8-0111 [6]; 8-0105 [7]; 8-0109 [2]; 6 NYCRR 617.8; Matter of Sutton Area Community v Board, of Estimate, 78 NY2d 945, 947 ). … Accordingly, "the 'hard look’ standard of judicial review is satisfied and the determination must be confirmed” (Matter of Sutton Area Community v Board of Estimate, supra, at 947). Sullivan, J.

Western Stone Products Corp. v. Town Board

25 A.D.2d 493 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 20, 1966

This is not a valid basis for dismissal of the complaint (Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N Y 2d 317, 334). … Insofar as the validity of the ordinance was attacked, the Board of Appeals had no power to make a determination on this issue (Anderson, Zoning Law and Practice in New York State, § 17.30; Matter of Cherry v.