Case law

Brand v. Teachers' Retirement Board

163 Misc. 217 · New York Supreme Court · May 25, 1937

Price v. Bingham, 125 App. Div. 722 ; Matter of Reynolds v. Bingham, 126 App. Div. 289 . … Matter of Hodgins v. Bingham (Court of Appeals, October 19, 1909), 196 N. Y. 123 .” (People ex rel. Cunningham v. Hayes, 122 N. Y. Supp. 104, 107 .)

Brandt v. Zoning Board of Appeals

90 Misc. 2d 31 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1977

The zoning board of appeals after public hearing and after the receipt of the recommendations of the planning board denied the application based upon their conclusion that there was an inadequate submission and the specific … ; Hartnett v Segur, 21 AD2d 132 ; see, also, Matter o Plotinsky v Gardner, 27 Misc 2d 681 and cases cited thereunder.)

Board of Education v. Tuttle

125 Misc. 230 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1925

Griffin v. Mayor of Brooklyn ( 4 N. … In Matter of McAneny v. Board of Estimate & Apportionment *237 ( 232 N.

Brown v. Mayor of New York

6 Thomp. & Cook 164 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1875

Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 131 ; Stone v. Miller, 62 Barb. 431 , 442; Miller v. Brinkerhoff, 4 Denio, 118 ; Staples v. Fairchild, 3 N. Y. 41, 46 ; People v. Soper, 7 id. 428, 431. … Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 N. Y. 254 .

Brown v. New York Central Railroad

26 How. Pr. 32 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1863

Brown v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias

37 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 219 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1883

People v. Brown Clerk of Oneida County

7 Wend. 493 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1832

Ackerson v. Board of Sup'rs

18 N.Y.S. 219 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1892

Strough v. Board, 119 N. Y. 212 , 23 N. E. Rep. 552. … People v. Jaehne, 103 N. Y. 195 , 8 N. E. Rep. 374; Hecknann v. Pinkney, 81 N. Y. 211 ; People v. McClave, 99 N. Y. 83 , 1 N. E. Rep. 235; In re Kiernan, 62 N. Y. 457 ; People v. Supervisors, 73 N. Y. 173 .

Karin v. Board of Education

65 Misc. 2d 179 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1970

Two of the board members, although present, abstained from voting because they were not present at the first meeting of the board. … (Christ v. Lake Erie Distrs., 51 Misc 2d 811 , affd. 28 A D 2d 817.)

People ex rel. Brown v. Green

2 Thomp. & Cook 23 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1873

Bright v. Supervisors of Chenango, 18 Johns. 242; Mallory v. Supervisors of Cortland; Doubleday v. Supervisors of Broome, 2 Cow. 583; People v. Supervisors of Albany, 12 Wend. 257 ; see, also, Brady v. … Kelly v. Haws, 21 How. Pr. 117 . The order should be affirmed. IíTGBAHAM, P. J., concurred. Order affirmed.

Keesee v. Board of Education

37 Misc. 2d 414 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1962

And besides, her judgment (in effect) that children should not be put into this game at all until they have been drilled and practiced in its skills, is supported by common sense and experience (see, e.g., Brooks v. … Board of Educ. of City of N. 7., 29 Misc 2d 19 , affd. 15 A D 2d 495). In that case the jury found for the plaintiff and I refused to set the verdict aside.

Orlando v. Board of Supervisors

53 Misc. 2d 377 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1966

Chemung County Bd. of Supervisors, 50 Misc 2d 418 ); Erie (Graham v. Board of Supervisors [Sup. Ct., Kelly, J., June 28, 1966]); Herkimer (Morris v. Board of Supervisors, 50 Misc 2d 929 ); Monroe (Matter of Goldstein v. … Rockefeller, 45 Misc 2d 778 ); Oneida (Treiber v. Lanigan, 48 Misc 2d 434 ); Onondaga (Barzelay v. Board of Supervisors, 47 Misc 2d 1013 ); Schenectady (Michl v.

Lee v. Board of Education

120 Misc. 2d 809 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1983

(See Matter of Mitthauer v Patterson, 8 NY2d 37 ; Matter of Boddie v County of Westchester, 41 AD2d 546 , affd 33 NY2d 835 ; Matter of Lo Bello v McLaughlin, 39 AD2d 404 .) … Respondents contend that the penalty imposed by the board in the instant matter is precisely that imposed by the *811 Appellate Division, First Department, in Matter of Pauling v Smith ( 46 AD2d 759 ).

Moskowitz v. Board of Elections

51 Misc. 2d 827 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1966

But the instant matter is not one in which the certificate of nomination was inadvertently filed at the wrong office (Matter of Lauer v. Board of Elections of City of N. Y., 262 N. … Y. 697 ; see, also, Matter of Orsini v. Heffernan, 187 Misc. 730 , affd. 296 N. Y. 698 ; Matter of Klein v. Heffernan, 296 N. Y. 699 ).

Brady v. Board of Elections

178 Misc. 797 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1942

Application, pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law, to review action of board of elections of the city of New York. *798 This is an application for an order commanding the board of elections of the city of New York … (Halligan v. Hughes, N. Y. L. J. Mar. 18, 1940, p. 1237, Hooley, J.)

Murmer v. Board of Appeals

98 Misc. 2d 1068 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1979

This conclusion is reinforced by what is said in Seaman v Fedourich ( 16 NY2d 94, 101 ): "It is axiomatic that governmental units are creations of, and exercise only those powers delegated to them by the State”. … (Wholesale Laundry Bd. v City of New York, 43 Misc 2d 816 , affd 22 AD2d 762 , 765, affd 15 NY2d 604 ; NY Const, art IX, § 2, subd [d]; Municipal Home Rule Law, § 22, subd 2.) *1072 Respondents cite 11 Opinions of the State

Brown v. Buffalo New York & Erie Railroad

34 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 342 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1882

(Angel & Ames on Corporations [2d ed.], -334, § 10 ; Prouty v. M. S. and N. I. R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 655 .) … complaint is defective as against the corporation in not alleging that it has refused to act for the relief cf the stockholders, and in support of that contention he suggests that there is no allegation that the present board

Newman v. Board of Supervisors

1 Lans. 476 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1869

Taking all that is alleged in the complaint to be true, it is clear, I think, that the action to recover back that money cannot be maintained since the decision of the Court of Appeals in Swift v. … Here the board of supervisors have estimated, and set down in the tax column of the assessment roll, a greater sum than was proper, or added an item to the tax which they were not authorized to add.

Rappold v. Board of Education

112 Misc. 2d 388 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1982

Administrative convenience must fall when it collides with tenure rights (Matter of Steele v Board of Educ., 53 AD2d 674 , affd 42 NY2d 840 ). In the same vein, tenure rights must fall when rescheduling is impossible. … In this case, however, petitioner is protected by subdivision 2 of section 2510 of the Education Law, and before his rights can be denied, the board must prove that their denial is necessary (Matter of Amos v Board of Educ

Herzog v. Board of Education

171 Misc. 2d 22 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1996

School Dist., 41 NY2d 283, 287 [citing Board of Educ. v Allen, 20 NY2d 109 , affd 392 US 236 ])”. … (Matter of Mahon v Board of Educ., 171 NY 263 ; Local 456 Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters v Town of Cortlandt, 68 Misc 2d 645 .)