Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.32s
84 A.D.2d 784 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 16, 1981
Order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Zeck, J.), dated August 18,1980, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements (see Press v County of Monroe, 50 NY2d 695 ; Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 ). Margett, J.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEngelke v. Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP
111 A.D.3d 444 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 2013
Gee, 100 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2012]; Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266 , 268 [1st Dept 2006], affd 9 NY3d 836 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1257 [2008]; Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318 [1st Dept 1999]). … Plaintiff had all of the disputed documents and cannot claim any prejudice in pursuing his claim (see Suazo v Linden Plaza Assoc., L.P., 102 AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2013]; McMahon v Ford Motor Co., 34 AD3d 263, 264 [1st Dept
Cited 0 timesPublishedCRK 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 timesPublishedConklin v. Board of Child Welfare
254 A.D. 837 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 17, 1938
(Matter of Jones v. Willcox, 80 App. Div. 167 ; Osterhoudt v. Board of Supervisors, 98 N. Y. 239 .) … Accordingly, under our decision in Matter of Amann v. Finegan ( 253 App.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSullivan v. Board of Estimate & Apportionment
254 A.D. 651 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 1, 1938
Cited 0 timesPublishedMoreira-Brown v. City of New York
109 A.D.3d 761 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 26, 2013
Konrad v Brown, 91 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 804 [2012]). … Plaintiff’s contention that the motion was untimely is unpreserved and may not be raised for the first time on appeal (see Shaw v Silver, 95 AD3d 416 [1st Dept 2012]).
Cited 0 timesPublishedDevitt v. Ulster County Board of Realtors
32 A.D.2d 993 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 1969
New York State Psychological Assn., 14 N Y 2d 100, 106-107; Matter of Kurk v. Medical Soc. of County of Queens, 24 A D 2d 897, affd. 18 N Y 2d 928). … Matter of Salter v. New York State Psychological Assn., supra, p. 107). It is not enough, as petitioner contends, to show he is unable to “ make a living on an equal competitive basis with members of the respondent.”
Cited 1 timesPublishedCadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Board of Managers
289 A.D.2d 1 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 4, 2001
record,” here, the mortgage held by Cadlerock (Bankers Trust Co. v Board of Mgrs. of Park 900 Condominium, 81 NY2d 1033, 1036 ). … Realty Corp. v Mina Equities Corp., 95 AD2d 169, 169-170 ). We thus direct the tenant to attorn and turn over all rents to plaintiff pendente lite.
Cited 2 timesPublishedAcero v. New York State Board of Parole
308 A.D.2d 641 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 18, 2003
The petition was properly dismissed by Supreme Court as untimely as it exceeded the applicable four-month statute of limitations (see CPLR 217 [1]; see also Matter of Grant v Senkowski, 95 NY2d 605 [2001]).
Cited 1 timesPublishedOtero v. New York State Board of Parole
266 A.D.2d 771 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 24, 1999
Notably, “[t]he ultimate power to order reincarceration and fix a date for rerelease rest[s] with the Parole Board or a member acting on its behalf’ (People ex rel. … Coleman v Smith, 75 AD2d 706, 707 , lv denied 50 NY2d 804 ; see, 9 NYCRR 8005.20 [b]; Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [x]).
Cited 3 timesPublishedSitterly Road Associates v. Board of Assessment Review
142 A.D.2d 243 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 1, 1988
Partnership v Board of Assessors, 127 AD2d 584, 585 ). … Town of Guilderland, 91 AD2d 799 , affd 59 NY2d 902 ; Newsday, Inc. v Town of Huntington, 82 AD2d 245, 250-252 , affd 55 NY2d 272 ).
Cited 5 timesPublishedMatter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v. Board of Assessors
137 A.D.3d 1029 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 2016
However, where a petitioner demonstrates the existence of a valid and credible dispute regarding valuation, the presumption is rebutted (id. at 188; Matter of Commerce Holding Corp. v Board of Assessors of Town of Babylon … Board of Assessors of Town of Babylon, 88 NY2d at 732 ).
Cited 6 timesPublishedStonegate Family Holdings, Inc. v. Board of Assessors
222 A.D.2d 997 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1995
Board of Assessors, 43 ÁD2d 649). … Tea Co. v Kiernan, 42 NY2d 236 ).
Cited 9 timesPublished191 A.D.3d 629 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 3, 2021
Board of Mgrs. of the 190 Meserole Ave. Condominium v Board of Mgrs. of the 188 Meserole Ave. Condominium ( 2021 NY Slip Op 00541 ) Board of Mgrs. of the 190 Meserole Ave. … Condominium v Board of Mgrs. of the 188 Meserole Ave.
Cited 2 timesPublishedRobinson v. Board of Education
104 A.D.3d 666 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 6, 2013
The plaintiffs service of a late notice of claim upon the Board was a nullity, as it was made without leave of the court (see Browne v New York City Tr. … v Board of Educ., Commack Union Free School Dist., 47 NY2d 613, 617 [1979]; Kim L. v Port Jervis City School Dist., 61 AD3d 825, 827 [2009]).
Cited 0 timesPublishedBain v. New York City Board of Education
268 A.D.2d 451 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 18, 2000
intruders “is a governmental function involving policymaking regarding the nature of the risks presented, and that no liability arises from the performance of such a function absent a special duty of protection” (Bonner v … City of New York, 73 NY2d 930, 932 ; see, Dickerson v City of New York, 258 AD2d 433 ; Edwards v City of Mount Vernon, 230 AD2d 821 ; see also, Krakower v City of New York, 217 AD2d 441 ; Salmond v Board of Educ., 131 AD2d
Cited 10 timesPublishedCasolaro v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Elmsford
200 A.D.2d 742 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 31, 1994
nature of its prior unambiguous determination (see, Matter of Kennedy v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 78 NY2d 1083 ; Matter of De Beilis v Luney, 128 AD2d 778 ). … (see, Matter of Kennedy v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 167 AD2d 542 , affd 78 NY2d 1083 , supra).
Cited 7 timesPublishedDilluvio v. Board of Regents of the University
60 A.D.2d 699 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1977
On our review of this record, we cannot say that the administrative determination of guilt was not supported by substantial evidence or without a rational basis (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ). … We cannot say that the penalty imposed is under all of the attendant circumstances so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra; Matter of Gliwa v
Cited 2 timesPublishedSmith v. Community School Board No. 9, Bronx
49 A.D.2d 766 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 29, 1975
This case does not fall within the ambit of prior cases decided by this court (Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 42 AD2d 702 ; Greenwald v Community School Bd. … No. 19, 48 AD2d 834 ; Matter of Parris v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 48 AD2d 835 ).
Cited 1 timesPublishedBoyd v. New York State Crime Victims Board
302 A.D.2d 380 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 3, 2003
of the New York State Crime Victims Board (hereinafter the Board) is supported by substantial evidence. … Accordingly, the Board properly rejected the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of private school tuition expenses. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna