Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersnyappdiv

10,000+ results

1.38s

  • Lecker v. New York City Board of Education

    157 A.D.2d 486 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 11, 1990

    Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on June 2, 1989, which denied petitioner’s application for an order directing the New York City Board of Education to amend … the Board’s Regulations Relating to the Inspection and Copying of Records so as to bring those regulations into full compliance with the New York State Freedom of Information Law and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Stertzbach v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

    117 A.D.2d 1012 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 21, 1986

    Board of Coop. … Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 272, 278 ; see also, Cottrell v Board of Educ., 181 Misc 645, 650 , affd 267 App Div 817 , affd 293 NY 792 ; cf.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Jaffie Contracting Co. v. Board of Education

    90 A.D.2d 163 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 7, 1982

    Co. v State of New York, supra; New York State Constr. Co. v City of New York, 163 App Div 227, 232 .) Further article 44 of the agreement precludes this claim. … . & Installation Corp. v Board of Educ. ( 28 NY2d 101, 105 ): “The contract contained a condition precedent to its effective existence.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Isen Contracting Corp. v. Town Board

    279 A.D. 607 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 22, 1951

    Baddour v. City of Long Beach, 279 N. Y. 167 , and Matter of Beckmann v. Talbot, 278 N. Y. 146 .) They do not include a proceeding such as this against the town board. … However, since no appeal by the town board is before us, we may not disturb the order as to it. Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • People ex rel. Underwood v. Board of Trustees

    171 A.D. 347 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 14, 1916

    Gleason v. Town Board, 21 App. … (Miller v. City of Amsterdam, 149 N. Y. 288 .)

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Claim of Miller v. Workmen's Compensation Board

    284 A.D. 1071 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 1954

    (Matter of Boss v. HollandDegenhandt Automotive Parts Co., 254 App. Div. 600 ; Matter of Van Ooteghem V. Sisters of the Good Shepherd, 249 App. Div. 898 .) … Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present- — -Foster, P. J., Coon, Halpern, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • CRK Contracting of Suffolk, Inc. v. Jeffrey M. Brown & Associates, Inc.

    260 A.D.2d 530 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 19, 1999

    Generalow, 213 AD2d 379, 380 , quoting Braunstein v Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53 ; see, D.C.I. … Danaco Contrs. v Associated Univs., 248 AD2d 663 ; Coliseum Towers Assocs. v County of Nassau, 217 AD2d 387, 390 ).

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • Alessi v. Board of Education

    105 A.D.3d 54 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2013

    Thus, the first criterion for determining a teacher’s seniority is the “actual full-time service rendered” thereby (Matter of Schoenfeld v Board of Coop. Educ. … Matter of Gerson v Board of Educ. of Comsewogue Union Free School Dist., 214 AD2d 732, 732-733 *59 [1995]; see generally Matter of Gould v Board of Educ. of Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist., 81 NY2d 446, 451-452 ).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Vataksi v. Environmental Control Board

    107 A.D.3d 905 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2013

    In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review determinations of the Environmental Control Board dated November 7, 2011, which denied the petitioner’s applications dated November 3, 2011, to vacate his defaults entered … City of New York, 64 AD3d 716, 717 [2009]; see generally Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; NYCTL 2009-A Trust v Tsafatinos, 101 AD3d 1092, 1093 [2012]; Matter of Nazir v Charge & Ride, Inc.,

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • United Water New Rochelle, Inc. v. Planning Board

    2 A.D.2d 627 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 2003

    G] [3], formerly § 10 [H] [3]; Matter of Twin Lakes Farms Assoc. v Town Clerk of Town of Bedford, 215 AD2d 667 [1995]; Matter of Biondi v Rocco, 173 AD2d 700, 702 [1991]; cf. … Matter of King v Chmielewski, 76 NY2d 182, 187-188 [1990]; Matter of Sun Beach Real Estate Dev. Corp. v Anderson, 98 AD2d 367, 369 [1983], affd on op below 62 NY2d 965 [1984]).

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Board of Regents of the University

    283 A.D. 591 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 31, 1954

    This is an appeal by the Board of Regents from an order of the Special Term annulling* the board’s determination suspending the license of the petitioner-respondent to practice medicine for one year. … Neither the result nor the considerations upon which it was based, can he reviewed hy the courts (Matter of Barsky v. Board of Regents, 305 N. Y. 89, 99 ).

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Rodriguez v. Board of Education

    107 A.D.3d 651 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 27, 2013

    Schachner, J.), entered May 7, 2012, which granted defendant Board of Education of the City of New York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion … Sabalza v Salgado, 85 AD3d 436, 437-438 [1st Dept 2011]; Rodriguez v 705-7 E. 179th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 79 AD3d 518, 519 [1st Dept 2010]).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bradford Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Education

    58 A.D.2d 1033 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 12, 1977

    that the appellants had violated the evaluation clauses of the contract between the association and the school district, acted within his power in ordering reinstatement of the grievant for a fourth probationary year (see Board … High School Dist., Nassau County v Bell-more-Merrick United Secondary Teachers, 39 NY2d 167 ; Board of Educ. of Chautauqua Cent. School Dist. v Chautauqua Cent. School Teachers Assn., 41 AD2d 47 ).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Tri-Rail Construction, Inc. v. Environmental Control Board

    114 A.D.3d 421 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 4, 2014

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Silhanek v. Zoning Board

    36 A.D.3d 1184 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 18, 2007

    Respondent referred the application to the Guilder-land Town Planner and the Albany County Planning Board, both of which recommended denial of the application. … Thus, we conclude that inasmuch as the determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Johnson v Town of Queensbury

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Adrian v. Board of Education of City School District

    92 A.D.3d 1272 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 17, 2012

    , and it therefore should not have been disturbed (see generally Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. … To the extent that petitioner contends as an alternative ground for affirmance that the District improperly failed to conduct a hearing before terminating her (see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • McNally v. Workers' Compensation Board

    103 A.D.3d 1236 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2013

    On this record, we cannot determine whether respondent Uninsured Employers Fund “was prejudiced by the settlement” of the underlying action and thus whether Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition (Buchanan v Scoville … Auth. v Jackson, 48 AD3d 818, 819 [2008]; Pasteur v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 241 AD2d 305, 305-306 [1997]). We therefore grant that relief as well.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • McNally v. Workers' Compensation Board

    103 A.D.3d 1236 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2013

    On this record, we cannot determine whether respondent Uninsured Employers Fund “was prejudiced by the settlement” of the underlying action and thus whether Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition (Buchanan v Scoville … Auth. v Jackson, 48 AD3d 818, 819 [2008]; Pasteur v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 241 AD2d 305, 305-306 [1997]). We therefore grant that relief as well.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Niagara County Water District v. Board of Assessors

    31 A.D.2d 1004 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 27, 1969

    In Matter of Onondaga Coimty Water Hist. v. … Board of Assessors ( 55 Misc 2d 481 , affd. 30 A D 2d 643, mot. for lv. to app. den. 22 N Y 2d 645) it was held that an exemption from taxation pursuant to section 272 of the County Law, extended *1005 to those improvements

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Nyack Hospital v. Village of Nyack Planning Board

    231 A.D.2d 617 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 23, 1996

    The failure of the Legislature to include an approval-by-default provision in the site plan statutes is a strong indication that such exclusion was intended (see, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 74; Pajak v … Pajak, 56 NY2d 394, 397 ; People v Finnegan, 85 NY2d 53 ), particularly where, as here, all four of the previously mentioned laws were amended simultaneously by chapter 486 of the Laws of 1994, and the provision relating

    Cited 10 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.