Case law

Seneca Grape Juice Corp. v. Board of Assessors

34 A.D.2d 692 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Apr 7, 1970

the Referee found the actual market value of the subject premises to be $65,000, he properly refused to grant a reduction in excess of the amount demanded in the respondent’s application to the assessors (Matter of Wright v.

A. D. Walker & Co. v. Board of Education

43 A.D.2d 868 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 28, 1974

McCullough v. Board of JSduc., Rgmapo Cent. School Dist. No. 2, 11 A D 2d 740; "General Obligations Law, § 17-103, subd. 4, par. b). Gulotta, P. J. Hopkins, Martuscello, Shapiro and Munder, JJ., concur.

People ex rel. Moss v. Board of Supervisors

178 A.D. 716 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 23, 1917

officer upon charges preferred against him, all the costs and expenses thereof, including those of taking and printing the testimony therein, shall be a county charge upon such county, and shall be audited and allowed by the board … Determination of the board of supervisors confirmed and writ dismissed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements against the relators.

Johnson v. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals

8 A.D.3d 741 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 3, 2004

Respondent’s interpretation is entitled to deference if it is found to have a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004 … Concluding that Supreme Court improperly substituted its discretion for that of respondent (see Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra at —, 2004 NY Slip Op 03510 , *1-2), we reverse Supreme Court’s judgment

Cannon v. Ulster County Board of Cooperative Educational Services

155 A.D.2d 846 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 22, 1989

within 30 days of such filing it is self-executing (see, e.g., Matter of Gallo v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 121 AD2d 24 , lv denied 69 NY2d 610 ; Matter of Colligan v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys … ., 95 AD2d 895 ; Greene v Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 107 Misc 2d 508 ).

Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board

204 A.D.2d 548 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 16, 1994

submitted by the intervenor Allan V. … of Schultz v Jorling, supra, 164 AD2d, at 255 ; see also, 6 NYCRR 617.3 [k]).

Town Board of Brighton v. City Council of Rochester

59 A.D.2d 1041 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 14, 1977

While the referees’ report should be carefully considered, it is advisory only (City of Batavia v Town of Batavia, 45 AD2d 203, 204 ). … The only qualified voters are the intervenors and the outcome of such an election is obvious (see Matter of Common Council of City of Middletown v Town Bd. of Town of Wallkill, 29 AD2d 561 ).

Consolidated Edison Co v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment

73 A.D.2d 31 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 21, 1980

Co. v Priest, 206 NY 274 ; People ex rel. Hudson & Manhattan R. R. Co. v State Bd. of Tax Comrs., 203 NY 119 ; People ex rel. Jamaica Water Supply Co. v State Bd. of Tax Comrs., 196 NY 39 ). … Edison Corp. v Moore, 6 AD2d 369, 376-377 ).

Red House Farm, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

234 A.D.2d 770 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 12, 1996

for determination” (Town Law § 267-c [4]; see, Matter of Delavore v Scheyer, 215 AD2d 478, 479 ; Matter of Be Blois v Wallace, 88 AD2d 1073,1074 , n [decided under Town Law former § 267 [7]). … We agree with Commsoft’s contention, that a mere increase in the volume of business activity will not of itself require a use variance (see, Matter of Tartan Oil Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 213 AD2d 486, 487-488 ; compare

Todem Homes, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals

74 A.D.2d 908 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 24, 1980

Howe, 34 AD2d 647 , affd without opn 29 NY2d 565 ; Matter of Rogers v Department of Housing & Bldgs, of City of N. … Corp. v Foley, 29 AD2d 522 ).

Monro Muffler/Brake, Inc. v. Town Board of Perinton

222 A.D.2d 1069 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 22, 1995

members voted to grant the application, two members voted to deny it, and one member abstained from voting did not, as petitioners contend, constitute a "non-action” by respondent (see, Town Law § 63; Matter of Zagoreos v … Therefore, we conclude that the denial of the application has a rational basis and should not be disturbed by this Court (see, Matter of Connors v *1070 Sullivan, 171 AD2d 982, 983 ).

Young v. Board of Education of the Baldwin Union Free School District

100 A.D.2d 515 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 5, 1984

Matter of Brown v Lavine, 37 NY2d 317 ). 11 In short, the record contains substantial evidence to support the charges, there were no evidentiary errors rising to the level of a due process violation (Matter of Lawrence Black … Accordingly, we confirm (Matter of Silberfarb v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 60 NY2d 979 ; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 ). Titone, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Adelman v. New York State Board of Parole

231 A.D.2d 791 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Sep 12, 1996

including petitioner’s assaultive past criminal history, his commission of numerous crimes while on parole and his poor institutional record, provided an ample basis for the denial of his request for parole (see, Matter of Hall v

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

89 A.D.3d 1365 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Nov 23, 2011

Here, consistent with this Court’s recent decision in Matter of Jaworek v Sears Roebuck & Co. ( 67 AD3d 1161 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]), the Board found concurrent employment pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law … Matter of Tucker v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 188 AD2d 34, 37 [1993]).

Martinez 2001 v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

36 A.D.3d 544 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jan 30, 2007

Bd. v Ortiz, — AD3d —, 2006 NY Slip Op 09532 , *2 [1st Dept 2006]). … Ctr. v Moore ( 52 NY2d 88, 96 [1981]).

Deer Park Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Education

74 A.D.2d 814 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 3, 1980

. *815 Order modified by adding to the third decretal paragraph thereof after the word "dismissed”, the following: "except that it is declared that the curriculum is the province of the school board and there was no violation … However, since this was an action for a declaratory judgment, the complaint should not have been dismissed in its entirety (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317 , app dsmd 371 US 74 ). Laser, J.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Assessor & Board of Assessment Review

82 A.D.3d 761 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Mar 1, 2011

Whitton, 46 AD3d 827 [2007]; Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Copley Ct. … Moreover, the Court of Appeals recently held that “mere technical irregularities in the commencement process should be disregarded if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced” (Matter of Garth v Board of Assessment

Mehta v. Town of Montour Zoning Board of Appeals

4 A.D.3d 657 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Feb 19, 2004

When the requested permit was denied, the Seafuses sought and obtained a hearing before respondent Town of Montour Zoning Board of Appeals which, after due deliberation, reversed the building inspector’s denial and directed … As we are unable to discern any exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), Supreme Court’s judgment is affirmed.

Basha Kill Area Ass'n v. Planning Board of Mamakating

46 A.D.3d 1309 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Dec 27, 2007

Board of Educ. of Roxbury Cent. … by virtue of the Board’s failure to hold an additional public hearing after YMMCA revised its site plans (see Town Law § 274-a [8]; Matter of Hickey v Planning Bd. of Town of Kent, 173 AD2d 1086, 1088-1089 [1991]).

People v. Rodriguez

52 A.D.3d 1047 · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · Jun 19, 2008

The store had closed for the night, but they observed a boarded window in the rear where they could remove the boards to gain entrance. … Defendant’s statement placed him at the scene, and Brown’s testimony implicated defendant’s involvement and role in the burglary.