Case law

Weisner v. 791 Park Avenue Corp.

7 A.D.2d 75 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 16, 1958

(Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Armstrong Co., 263 N. Y. 79, 87 .) … to accept a prospect produced by Brown, Harris & Stevens or run the risk of having the broker’s representative on the board of defendant corporation successfully prevent the giving of the necessary approval.

Robinson v. Board of Regents of the University

79 A.D.2d 1067 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 22, 1981

Matter of Falcone v New York State Educ. Dept., 50 NY2d 854 ; Matter of Tartack v New York State Educ. Dept., 75 AD2d 953 ; Matter of Mosner v Ambach, 66 AD2d 912 ). … The instant suspension, though severe, may not be characterized as shocking to a sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.

Montes-Amaya v. Suffolk County Board of Elections

33 A.D.3d 946 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 27, 2006

Service of process was properly effected pursuant to CPLR *947 308 (1) (see Bossuk v Steinberg, 58 NY2d 916, 918 [1983]; Matter of Cannuscio v Garfinkle, 307 AD2d 1003 [2003]). … Goodspeed, 196 AD2d 675 [1993]; Matter of George v Van Keuren, 185 Misc 671 [1945]; see also Matter of Bush v Salerno, 51 NY2d 95 [1980]).

Heywood Condominium Ex Rel. Board of Managers v. Wozencraft

148 A.D.3d 38 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 12, 2017

Defendant’s challenges to the amounts due should be addressed by a referee, pursuant to RPAPL 1321 (see Board of Mgrs. of Cent. Park Place Condominium v Potoschnig, 111 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2013]; 1855 E. … Bank v 32-22 Owners Corp., 236 AD2d at 301 ).

Brown v. State of New York

103 A.D.2d 763 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 9, 1984

People ex rel. Long v. Board of Supervisors

120 A.D. 552 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 7, 1907

Brown, 45 id. 207), and that rule has been applied to the right to review the determination of an auditing board. (People ex rel. McDonough v. Supervisors, 33 Hum, 305; People ex rel. Haerle v. Supervisors, 31 App. … Morrison v. Supervisors ( 56 Hun, 459 ; affd., 127 N. Y. 654 ).

Macon v. New York State Board of Parole

176 A.D.2d 880 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 21, 1991

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, dated October 1990 which, after a parole release hearing, denied the petitioner release on parole, and to compel … DiCostanzo v Hernandez, 137 AD2d 861 ; Matter of Samperi v Rodriquez, 126 AD2d 653 ; Matter of Davis v New York State Div. of Parole, 114 AD2d 412 ).

Foley v. Golub Corp.

252 A.D.2d 905 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 30, 1998

As to the denial of Brown’s motion for summary judgment, it is clear that a duty was imposed upon it to provide a safe place for its patrons to board and exit its vehicle (see, Miller v Fernan, 73 NY2d 844 ; Connolly v Rogers … With only speculation proffered as to how Brown may have breached its duty, Brown’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).

Guilbe v. New York City Board of Education

193 A.D.2d 604 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 3, 1993

With that phrase, the provision in question did not authorize a hearing in the petitioner’s case (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573 ; Harris v Uhlendorf, 24 NY2d 463, 467 ). … Dilworth, 99 AD2d 468 ; D’Aiuto v Department of Water Resources, 51 AD2d 700 ).

Matter of Epstein v. Waldbaums

2025 NY Slip Op 02633 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 1, 2025

of Davis v Hutchings Children Servs. , 213 AD3d 1111, 1113 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 902 [2023]; see Matter of Brown v Plans Plus Ltd. , 231 AD3d at 1251; Workers' Compensation Board Release Subject No. 046-938 [ … The Board's resulting determination, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Brown v Plans Plus Ltd. , 231 AD3d at 1251; Matter of Davis v Hutchings Children Servs. , 213 AD3d at 1113 )

Fehlhaber v. Board of Education

96 A.D.3d 1633 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 2012

tenure rights which are legal rights guaranteed by State law and in the public interest” (Matter of Cowan v Board of Educ. of Brentwood Union Free School Dist., 99 AD2d 831, 833 [1984]; see Matter of Moraitis v Board of … or] her teaching position and forfeit [his or] her tenure rights’ ” (Cicarelli v Board of Educ. of W.

People ex rel. Brown v. LeFevre

98 A.D.2d 873 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 9, 1983

Frazier v Coombe, 87 AD2d 904 ). Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Yesawich, Jr., Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Board

269 A.D.2d 714 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 24, 2000

Considering the factors relevant to determining the level of procedural protection required (see, Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 ), and taking into account the fact-specific nature of the jurisdictional issue raised … by TRL (see, Matter of Nashko v Standard Waterproofing Co., 4 NY2d 199 ; Matter of Linton v North Am.

Smolen v. Board of Education

304 A.D.2d 834 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 28, 2003

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Board of Education of the City School District of New York, dated September 13, 2000, terminating the petitioner’s employment as a … The petitioner failed to demonstrate that his probationary term commenced prior to the date of his formal appointment (see Melnick v Board of Educ., 104 AD2d 943 [1984]; cf. Ricca v Board of Educ., 47 NY2d 385 [1979]).

Edward C. Jones Co. v. Board of Education

51 N.Y.S. 950 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 24, 1898

In the case of Barrett v. Weber, 125 N. Y., at page 25, 25 N. … And this rule is fully sustained in the case of Secor v. Clark, 117 N. Y. 350 , 22 N.

Edward C. Jones Co. v. Board of Education

30 A.D. 429 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 1, 1898

In the case of Barrett v. Weber ( 125 N. … The same principle, in the negative, is asserted in the case of McPherson v. Cox ( 86 N.

Solimine v. New York State Board of Parole

268 A.D.2d 638 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 6, 2000

In light of petitioner’s reappearance before respondent, the instant appeal is now moot and must be dismissed (see, Matter of Keating v New York State Div. of Parole, 252 AD2d 635 ; Matter of Herrera v New York State Bd.

Metropolitan Switch Board Co. v. Amici Associates Inc.

20 A.D.3d 455 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 11, 2005

Teramo & Co., 308 AD2d 432, 433 [2003]; Gottehrer v Viet-Hoa Co., 170 AD2d 648 [1991]; Gold v Royal Cigar Co., 105 AD2d 831, 832 [1984]). … The plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gordon v Teramo & Co., supra at 433; Gottehrer v Viet-Hoa Co., supra). The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. S.

Board of Managers of the Soundings Condominium v. Foerster

138 A.D.3d 160 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 23, 2016

The gravamen of the defense is that because the Second Department has expanded the scope of the statute to encompass a condominium unit (see Quinones v Board of Mgrs. of Regalwalk Condominium I, 242 AD2d 52, 57 [2d Dept 1998 … Co. v Leach & Co., 247 NY 1, 8 [1928]).

Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc. v. Board of Education

59 A.D.2d 531 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 1, 1977

duty to reject all bids received and extend its contract with that petitioner if such an extension would be at a price lower than the bid submitted by Starlite (see Matter of Ross v Wilson, 308 NY 605 ; Matter of White Carriage … The board’s decision to award the contract to Starlite, under these circumstances, did not constitute an abuse of its discretion so as to justify judicial interference with the board’s good faith performance of its duties