Case law

Nelson v. New York State Board of Parole

123 A.D.2d 633 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 6, 1986

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Board of Parole, dated April 18, 1985, which affirmed a determination of the Division of Parole, dated July 2, 1984, which, … Van Fossen v Dillon, 72 AD2d 166, 169 , quoting from People ex rel. Gaskin v Smith, 55 AD2d 1004, 1006; Matter of White v New York State Bd. of Parole, 49 AD2d 908, 909 ).

East Bayside Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of Standards

77 A.D.2d 858 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 4, 1980

Further, we note that the board of standards and appeals has consistently interpreted section 22-13 of the zoning resolution in this manner. … Corp. v Murdock, 285 NY 298, 309 ).

Bulger v. New York State Board of Parole

183 A.D.2d 451 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 12, 1992

There is substantial evidence to support the determination of the Parole Board that petitioner had violated the conditions of his release (see, People ex rel. Walker v Hammock, 78 AD2d 369, 371 ). … Petitioner’s attack upon the time assessment of his re-imprisonment is not a ground for relief as the Parole Board is not required to fix a date for a parole reconsideration hearing (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of

Washington Moving & Storage Co. v. Board of Education

51 A.D.2d 1038 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 22, 1976

Co. of Syracuse v McMorran, 21 AD2d 949, 950 ; Matter of Kayñeld Constr. Corp. v Morris, 15 AD2d 373, 378-379 ; Walsh v Mayor of the City of New York, 113 NY 142, 146-147 ).

Derella v. Town Board

37 A.D.2d 978 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 22, 1971

on December 22,1970, the amount to be raised in each sewer district not exceeding the amount approved and adopted by the Town Board on that date; (2) the Town Board shall hold a public hearing thereon in the manner and upon … This is a substantial noncompliance with the statute and, as such, it renders the 1971 sewer assessment roll void and unenforceable (see Merritt v. Village of Portchester, 71 N. Y. 309, 311-312 ; cf. Lyon v.

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.

Porter v. New York State Board of Parole

282 A.D.2d 843 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 12, 2001

In light of petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that respondent’s determination was affected by a “ ‘showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 , quoting Matter of Russo … v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 ), we find no reason to disturb the discretionary determination that petitioner was not an acceptable candidate for parole release (see, Matter of Serna v New York State Div

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.

Rodriguez v. New York City Board of Education

190 A.D.2d 579 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 11, 1993

proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay, and also failed to show that respondent had actual notice of the facts surrounding the accident, in particular the basis of the claim of negligence against it (see, Matter of Green v

Kan v. New York City Environmental Control Board

262 A.D.2d 135 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 15, 1999

Where, as here, the determination is unambiguous and of certain consequence, the statutory period commences as soon as the aggrieved party is notified (Matter of Edmead v McGuire, 67 NY2d 714 ). … Petitioner’s letter of July 17, 1997 requesting reconsideration did not toll the statutory period (see, Matter of De Milio v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216 ; Raykowski v New York City Dept. of Transp., 259 AD2d 367 ).

People ex rel. Brown v. Smith

81 A.D.2d 1039 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 1981

Wilder v Markley, 26 NY2d 648 .) (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court — habeas corpus.) Present — Cardamone, J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Board of Mgrs. of Carriage House Condominium v. Healy

2021 NY Slip Op 00249 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 19, 2021

Board of Mgrs. of Carriage House Condominium v Healy ( 2021 NY Slip Op 00249 ) Board of Mgrs. of Carriage House Condominium v Healy 2021 NY Slip Op 00249 Decided on January 19, 2021 Appellate Division, First Department Published … Index No. 150491/19 Appeal No. 12903N&M-2441 M-3245 Case No. 2020-02423 [*1]Board of Managers of Carriage House Condominium, Plaintiff-Respondent, v Valeria Calafiore Healy et al., Defendants-Appellants.

State Board of Professional Medical Conduct v. Schlesinger

84 A.D.2d 879 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 19, 1981

On or about April 18, 1980, the New York State Board of Professional Medical Conduct (board) charged respondent Dr. … In situations such as this, however, we have held the granting of prohibition improper (see Matter of Rainka v Whalen, 73 AD2d 731 , affd 51 NY2d 973 ).

Brown v. Mat Enterprises of NY Inc.

97 A.D.3d 401 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 3, 2012

The expert noted the two-week delay between the accident and the loss of the fetus, and the fact that in the intervening time, both plaintiff and the fetus had normal examinations (see generally Franchini v Palmieri, 1 NY3d … Corp., 82 AD3d 596, 597 [2011]; Tsamos v Diaz, 81 AD3d 546 [2011]). Given the conflicting evidence in the medical records, the matter should be resolved by the trier of fact.

Held v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

85 A.D.3d 35 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 21, 2011

Jorling, 91 NY2d 507, 516 [1998]; Matter of Lezette v Board of Educ., Hudson City School Dist., 35 NY2d 272, 281 [1974]; Matter of Aides At Home, Inc. v State of N.Y. … share of the administrative expenses incurred by the Board in fulfilling its mission of providing “a swift and sure source of benefits to injured” workers (Crosby v State of N.Y., Workers’ Compensation Bd., 57 NY2d 305, 313

Hofstein v. Board of Zoning & Appeals of Hempstead

159 A.D.2d 503 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1990

v Foley, 45 NY2d 441 ). … Accordingly, the Board’s denial of the application for a variance was arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra), and the Supreme Court properly annulled

Board of Education of the Union-Endicott Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

197 A.D.2d 276 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 5, 1994

The gravamen of the relief sought in this case is fundamentally private (see, Matter of Jackson v Board of Educ., 194 AD2d 901 , lv denied 82 NY2d 657 ; Hoger v Thomann, 189 AD2d 1048 ; Matter of Harder v Board of Educ., … 188 AD2d 783 ), and "not attempting to pursue the kind of public interest that would remove the necessity of filing a notice of claim” (Matter of Jackson v Board of Educ., supra, at 903).

Dinerman v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

55 A.D.3d 530 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 7, 2008

factual claims flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration” (Garber v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 38 AD3d 833, 834 [2007], quoting Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87 … Garber v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 38 AD3d at 834 ; Gertler v Goodgold, 107 AD2d 481, 485 [1985], affd 66 NY2d 946 [1985]).

Dear v. Board of Elections

307 A.D.2d 1006 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 20, 2003

Further, these provisions, as applied to him, did not violate his constitutional rights, as he does not have a fundamental right to be a candidate (see Matter of Roth v Cuevas, 158 Misc 2d 238, 252 [1993], affd 197 AD2d 369