Case law

Hauquitz v. Conservation Board

30 A.D.3d 521 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 13, 2006

As the Supreme Court correctly found, the determination of the Conservation Board of the Town of Southampton was not arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, or indicative of bad faith (see Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 … , 599 [1977]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768 [2005]; Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v Planning Bd. of Town of N.

Hill v. Board of Education of Central School

286 A.D. 332 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 1955

It means the delivery of such obligations against payment of the purchase price (Brownell v. Town of Greenwich, 114 N. Y. 518 ; Zimmerman v. Timmerman, 193 N. Y. 486 ). … The identical issue was also decided recently, and contra to the decision appealed from, in Matter of Rigaud v. Board of Educ., Ramapo ( 207 Misc. 742 ).

Smith v. New York State Board of Parole

34 A.D.3d 1156 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 30, 2006

Because respondent relied upon erroneous information in denying parole release, this Court must annul respondent’s determination and remit for a new hearing (see Matter of Plevy v Travis, 17 AD3d 879, 880 [2005]).

Hrisinko v. Board of Education

101 A.D.3d 451 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 2012

The 2011 order is not appealable as of right, as it was “made in a proceeding against a body or officer pursuant to [CPLR] *452 article 78” (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]; see Matter of Storman v New York City Dept. of Educ., 95 AD3d … Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Hrisinko v. Board of Education

101 A.D.3d 451 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 6, 2012

The 2011 order is not appealable as of right, as it was “made in a proceeding against a body or officer pursuant to [CPLR] *452 article 78” (CPLR 5701 [b] [1]; see Matter of Storman v New York City Dept. of Educ., 95 AD3d … Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Broadway-Saranac Lake Corp. v. Board of Assessors

43 A.D.2d 649 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 21, 1973

Beardsley v. Barber, 266 App. Div.. 371, 373, affd. 293 N. Y. 706 ). … of the problem to a much greater degree than the board’s expert.

Cadlerock 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.

Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v. Riccardi

2024 NY Slip Op 03806 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 17, 2024

Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v Riccardi ( 2024 NY Slip Op 03806 ) Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v Riccardi 2024 NY Slip Op 03806 Decided on July 17, 2024 Appellate Division, Second Department Published … "In reviewing a condominium board's actions, courts should apply the business judgment rule" ( Board of Mgrs. of Fishkill Woods Condominium v Gottlieb , 184 AD3d 785 , 789).

Hempstead Classroom Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Education

112 A.D.2d 267 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 15, 1985

Employees Assn. v County of Nassau, 84 AD2d 784 ). Hence, Special Term erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground of "arbitration and award”. Lazer, J.

Dodson v. Planning Board of Town of Highlands

163 A.D.2d 804 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 26, 1990

It is well settled that a planning board "may validly impose reasonable conditions on the approval of a site plan” (Holmes v Planning Bd., 78 AD2d 1, 12 ; see, Matter of Dexter v Town Bd., 36 NY2d 102, 105 ; 2 Anderson, New … support in the record’ ” (Matter of Lee v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 122 AD2d 423, 424 , quoting Matter of Sullivan v Town Bd., 102 AD2d 113, 115 , appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 952 ), the denial cannot be supported.

Moore v. New York State Board of Parole

274 A.D.2d 886 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 27, 2000

cert denied 525 US 1183 ; Matter of Flecha v Travis, 246 AD2d 720 ; People ex rel. … We previously considered that argument and found it to be without merit (see, Matter of Hagan v Coughlin, 100 AD2d 696 ). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Van Wormer v. Planning Board of Richland

158 A.D.2d 995 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 2, 1990

Board of Education v. Buffalo Teachers Federation, Inc.

191 A.D.2d 985 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 12, 1993

v Napolitano, 186 AD2d 989 ). … Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179 ; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 231). We also agree with PERB that the alleged procedural errors do not require reversal.

Treadway v. Town Board of Town of Ticonderoga

163 A.D.2d 637 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 5, 1990

The right to commence a suit would run from the time that the Town Board made a final binding determination denying plaintiffs request to open Bear Pond Road (see, Matter of Connell v Town Bd., 113 AD2d 359 , affd 67 NY2d … Any ambiguity as to when the statutory period began to run is to be resolved against the Town Board in determining the question of whether the matter was timely commenced (see, Matter of Fischer v Roche, 81 AD2d 541 , affd

In re Baldwinsville Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

268 A.D. 414 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 15, 1944

The meeting then adjourned and immediately the Board of Directors convened. Brown was elected president of the association. … In Slee v.

Alabi v. Community Board No. 2 of Brooklyn

17 A.D.3d 459 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 11, 2005

of De Paoli v Board of Educ., Somers Cent School Dist., 92 AD2d 894 [1983]). … In such circumstances, the specific provision must control (see Iazzetti v City of New York, 94 NY2d 183, 190 [1999]; People v Lawrence, 64 NY2d 200, 204 [1984]).

Wallkill Cemetery Ass'n v. Town of Wallkill Planning Board

73 A.D.3d 1189 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 25, 2010

(ECL art 8), and enjoining the Planning Board of the Town of Wallkill from taking any action with respect to the application of E. … Greenbush, 7 NY3d 306, 317 [2006]; Matter of Young v Board of Trustees of Vil. of Blasdell, 89 NY2d 846, 848-849 [1996]; Matter of Southwest Ogden Neighborhood Assn. v Town of Ogden Planning Bd., 43 AD3d 1374, 1374-1375 [

People ex rel. Brown v. New York State Division of Parole

262 A.D.2d 433 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 7, 1999

Donohoe v Montanye, 35 NY2d 221 ; People ex rel. DeFlumer v Strack, 212 AD2d 555 ). … DeFlumer v Strack, supra; People ex rel. Hampton v Scully, 166 AD2d 734 ). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Brewster-Mill Park Realty, Inc. v. Town Board

17 A.D.2d 467 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 28, 1962

Y. 387, 392 ; Gaynor v. Marohn, 268 N. Y. 417 ; People ex rel. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Wildy, 262 N. Y. 109 ; Matter of Haskell v. Fisk, 273 App. Div. 153 ; People ex rel. Prosperity Co. v. … The fact that respondent already has privately arranged to provide itself with adequate facilities is not controlling (O’Flynn v. Village of East Rochester, 292 N. Y. 156 ; Matter of Amundson, supra; Board of Educ. v.

Farren v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.

119 A.D.3d 518 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 2, 2014

In opposition to the Board of Education’s prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Board of Education created the condition … Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the Board of Education (see Crawford v City of New