Case law

Dykes v. Planning Board of Town of Webster

45 A.D.3d 1288 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 9, 2007

Rumsey v. Niebel

286 A.D.2d 564 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 22, 2001

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this special proceeding seeking to invalidate the certificate of election of officers of the Chautauqua County Independence Party filed by Randall Brown (respondent). … Reape, 272 AD2d 544 ; Matter of Zicari v Stewart, 207 AD2d 951 ; Matter of Ehle v Wallace, 195 AD2d 1086 , lv denied 82 NY2d 653 ), but failed to do so.

Amoruso v. Board of Managers of Westchester Hills Condominium

38 A.D.2d 845 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 22, 1972

The property is governed by the defendant Board of Managers elected under by-laws as required by sections 339-u and 339-v (subd. 1) of the Real Property Law. … Plaintiffs argue that the above-quoted by-law is invalid on its face in granting to the board the power to violate provisions of the Condominium Act, specifically, section 339-v (subd. 1, par.

Knadle v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Huntington

121 A.D.2d 447 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 9, 1986

"Entitlement to .a special exception is not a matter of right” (Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801, 802 ), and an exception may only be secured upon a showing of compliance with those standards … set forth in the zoning ordinance (see, Matter of Roginski v Rose, 97 AD2d 417 , affd 63 NY2d 735 ; Matter of Wen & Liz Realty Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 94 AD2d 182 ).

Board of Mgrs. of the Alfred Condominium v. Miller

2022 NY Slip Op 00808 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 2022

Board of Mgrs. of the Alfred Condominium v Miller ( 2022 NY Slip Op 00808 ) Board of Mgrs. of the Alfred Condominium v Miller 2022 NY Slip Op 00808 Decided on February 08, 2022 Appellate Division, First Department Published … The defamation counterclaim in the Board Action was correctly dismissed because it did not set forth "the particular words complained of" ( see CPLR 3016[a]; Offor v Mercy Med.

People v. Andrychuk

38 A.D.3d 1242 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 16, 2007

Based upon the total risk factor score on the risk assessment instrument, defendant was presumptively classified as a level one risk (see generally People v Brown, 302 AD2d 919, 920 [2003]), and the Board of Examiners of … 1158 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 709 [2006]; see generally Brown, 302 AD2d at 920 ).

Board of Education v. Three Village Teachers' Ass'n

81 A.D.2d 820 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 4, 1981

DeVaux v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board

158 A.D.2d 892 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 22, 1990

It is not disputed that petitioner has a property interest in his license sufficient to invoke the requirements of due process (see, Matter of Casse v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 70 NY2d 589, 593 ). … In Ferguson v Meehan ( 141 AD2d 604, 606 ), relied upon by Supreme Court, the court concluded that the administrative agency had not acted in good faith and had denied the petitioner therein due process by failing, until

Regency Realty Associates, LLC v. Board of Assessment Review

75 A.D.3d 950 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 22, 2010

/Price Chopper Operating Co. v Assessor of Town of Queensbury, 282 AD2d 962, 963 [2001], quoting Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Town of Bethlehem Assessor, 225 AD2d 841, 843 [1996]). … Nor are we persuaded that, deferring, as we must, to Supreme Court’s resolution of credibility issues generated by the conflicting expert opinions (see Matter of Northern Pines MHP, LLC v Board of Assessment Review of the

Cadieux v. Board of Education of City School District

25 A.D.2d 579 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 8, 1966

Garden Corp., 156 Misc. 311 , and even a game of stieckball: Lutzker v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 262 App. Div. 881 , affd. 287 N. Y. 822 ), and the same rationale applies to a football game. … Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., supra). We find no merit in the additional contentions advanced by appellants. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Stahl v. Putnam County Board of Elections

10 A.D.3d 435 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Aug 19, 2004

Under the circumstances, the proceeding was not timely “instituted” (Election Law § 16-102 [2]; see Matter of Wilson v Garfinkle, 5 AD3d 409 [2004]; Matter of Marino v Orange County Bd. of Elections, 307 AD2d 1011 [2003]; … Matter of Eckart v Edelstein, 185 AD2d 955 [1992]).

Brenner v. New York City Board of Education

296 A.D.2d 519 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 22, 2002

v Rausch, 226 AD2d 420 ). … AD2d 257 ; Felix v Lettre, 204 AD2d 679, 680 ; Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 201 AD2d 693, 696 , affd 87 NY2d 370 ; Mazzilli v City of New York, 154 AD2d 355 ; DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105

New Scotland Avenue Neighborhood Ass'n v. Planning Board

142 A.D.2d 257 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 8, 1988

Ventures Corp. v Foster, 71 NY2d 359, 372 ; Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246 , affd 59 NY2d 849 ). … Having concluded that the Planning Board satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA, this court’s role is complete (Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., supra, at 416).

Brown & Co. v. Dutchess Works One-Stop Employment & Training Center, Inc.

73 A.D.3d 984 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 18, 2010

Individuals select a program from an eligible training provider list provided by the local board, here, DCWIB. … Brown, the president of the plaintiff, believed that Dutchess Works was discouraging students from attending his school.

Rockbottom Stores, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

237 A.D.2d 611 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 31, 1997

135 ; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 231; Matter of Lawrence v Weinstein, 181 AD2d 888 ; Matter of County of Suffolk v Newman, 173 AD2d 618 ). … based upon substantial evidence (see, Matter of Party City v Board of Appeals, 212 AD2d 618 ).

Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

299 A.D.2d 409 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 12, 2002

we perceive no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that its property was overvalued in each of the pertinent tax years (see Matter of FMC Corp. v

Meachem v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

87 A.D.2d 813 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 5, 1982

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated October 4, 1979, which affirmed a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights … We cannot conclude, on this record, that the determination of the State Division, which was affirmed by the appeal board, of no probable cause was arbitrary and capricious on the ground that the underlying investigation of

Hazen v. Board of Education of City School District

75 A.D.3d 471 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jul 20, 2010

Liberties Union v State of New York, 4 NY3d 175, 184 [2005]), but is rather an extraordinary remedy limited in its application to vindicate a petitioner’s clear legal entitlement to a course of action (Matter of Legal Aid … Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12 [1981]; see also Matter of Brusco v Braun, 84 NY2d 674, 680 [1994]).

Jackson v. Kirkpatrick

125 A.D.2d 471 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 15, 1986

Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). Even though the Board correctly found that the petitioners’ financial hardship was self-imposed, this fact does not prevent the Board from granting the area variance. … The Board shall formulate these reasonable conditions after a hearing for that purpose, upon notice to all parties affected. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.

McGill v. Board of Supervisors of Niagara County

28 A.D.2d 637 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 11, 1967

Memorandum: The judgment appealed from declared that the present Niagara County legislative apportionment and section 150 of the County Law are unconstitutional as applied to Niagara County and ordered that the present Board … Under the judgment neither the Board of Supervisors nor the City of Niagara Falls has any power or authority to redistrict the county or the city.