Case law

Board of Education v. State Division of Human Rights

38 A.D.2d 245 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 17, 1972

The Board, a public employer, is subject generally to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the State Division of Human Bights (Matter of Board of Higher Educ. v. Carter, 14 N Y 2d 138,152-153). … People v. Shafer, 30 A D 2d 213, 216; McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 1, Statutes, § 230).

Silverstein v. Appeals Board of Parking Violations Bureau

100 A.D.2d 778 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 10, 1984

We agree with Special Term that the issues raised by the petition have been rendered moot and, accordingly, affirm the judgment. 11 We take this occasion, however, to note that in Matter of Gruen v Parking Violations Bur.

Rockville Centre Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Education

48 A.D.2d 698 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 1975

Matter of Baron v Mackreth, 30 AD2d 810 , affd 26 NY2d 1039 ). The award is not violative of any statute. … It does not contravene the right of the board to abolish- positions—so long as the functions of the positions are not continued (see Education Law, § 1709).

Bindra v. Board of Assessors

81 A.D.3d 725 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2011

Group v Board of Assessors, 72 AD3d 1090 [2010]).

Warner v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board

126 A.D.2d 956 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 23, 1987

Although this *957 was serious misconduct which violates a Board rule (9 NYCRR 4117.4 [n]) and justifies the determination herein (Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 309 [1]), there was no evidence that petitioner … benefited financially from the scheme in which he was a relatively minor character (see, Gleason v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 98 AD2d 964 ; see also, Matter of Swift v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 100

Marino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Cheektowaga

176 A.D.2d 1210 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 4, 1991

Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 NY2d 105, 108 ; see also, Human Dev. … Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 139-140; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 NY2d 598, 606 ; Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 NY2d 438 , 441).

Brown v. New York City Transit Authority

295 A.D.2d 384 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 10, 2002

In an action such as this, the plaintiff’s damages include the loss of use of the guide dog for the time she was deprived of its use (see Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 665 ; see also Blauvelt v Cleveland … , 198 App Div 229 ; Stettner v Graubard, 82 Misc 2d 132 ).

Bessey v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

204 A.D. 641 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 1923

The verdict was set aside as inconsistent, as had been held in other cases (Pangburn v. Buick Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228 ; Frascone v. Louderback, 153 App. … We held in Fedden v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal ( 204 App.

Guterman v. Board of Education

80 A.D.3d 563 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 11, 2011

The defendants established the prima facie entitlement of the defendant Board of Education of the *564 City of New York (hereinafter the Board) to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the Board did not create … Dev., LLC, 69 AD3d 561, 562 [2010]; Hunter v Riverview Towers, 5 AD3d 249 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Delgado v. New York City Board of Education

272 A.D.2d 207 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2000

February 1, 2000, which, in a proceeding to vacate or modify an arbitration decision rejecting petitioner’s grievance of the termination of his employment with the Office of School Food and Nutritional Services of respondent Board … Petitioner lacks standing to bring the instant petition since he was represented by the union at the arbitration (see, Sampson v Board of Educ., 191 AD2d 283 ), and we affirm the dismissal of the petition for that reason.

MATTER OF ADDABBO v. Donovan

43 Misc. 2d 621 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 13, 1964

In commenting on the two Brown crises decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U. S. 483 , 349 U. S. 294 ), the Appellate Division of the Second Department (Matter of Balaban v. … It pointed out at page 199: “ There can be no doubt (since Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U. S. 483 ) that de jure segregation is unconstitutional.

Willer v. New York State Board of Regents

101 A.D.2d 937 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 17, 1984

Thereafter, petitioner was charged in over 50 specifications of professional misconduct by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct. … Co. v Pattersonville Tel. Co., 56 NY2d 11, 17 ).

Vrooman v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Philipstown

298 A.D.2d 594 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 28, 2002

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Philipstown dated July 10, 2000, which annulled the petitioners’ building permit, the petitioners appeal

Alpert v. Board of Governors of the City Hospital

286 A.D. 542 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 2, 1955

It has been held that a regularly licensed physician cannot be denied the use of a public hospital hy the operation of unreasonable rules and • regulations (Findlay v. Board of Supervisors, 72 Ariz. 58 ; Johnson v. … It may next be supposed, arguendo, that respondent determined to exclude all physicians but one, as occurred in Findlay v. Board of Supervisors (supra).

Honig v. Board of Supervisors of Rensselaer County

31 A.D.2d 989 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 10, 1969

('See Davis v. Board of ¡Supervisors of County of Clinton•, 28 A D 2d 583, citing Swann v. Adams, 385 U. IS. 440.) … (See lannueci V. Board of Supervisors of County of Washington, 20 N ¡Y 2d 244, 252; Town of Greenburgh v. Board of Supervisors of County of Westchester, 57 Mise 2d 1008, 1011; Dobish v.

People ex rel. Hall v. Board of Trustees

54 N.Y.S. 1083 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 16, 1898

In villages the members of the board of health, not less than three nor .more than seven, must be appointed by the board of trustees of the village. Sections 20, 21, art. 2, of the act. … People v. Morton, 148 N. Y. 162 , 42 N. E. 538 ; People v. Mayor, etc., of City of Yonkers (Sup.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 455 ; People v. Goetting (Sup.) 8 N. Y. Supp. 742 .

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Hudson

267 A.D. 763 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 21, 1943

BROWN, LINDA M. v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 10, 2016

BROWN, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WAYNE BROWN, DECEASED, CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT, V ORDER STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. … BROWN, CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT, V STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (CLAIM NO. 110037.) (APPEAL NO. 1.) ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JONATHAN D.

People ex rel. Brownell v. Board of Assessors

127 A.D. 851 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 7, 1908

Yawger v. Allen, 52 id. 538.) … (Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 373 .)

Belanger v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board

114 A.D.2d 609 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Oct 17, 1985

The latter contention has heretofore been considered and rejected by this court (Matter of Crawford v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 100 AD2d 653, 653-654 ); we adhere to that decision. … That regulation, the validity of which is undisputed (see, Barchi v Sarafan, 436 F Supp 775, 783-784 , mod sub nom.