Case law

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 .)

Lugo v. Board of Elections

123 Misc. 2d 764 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1984

(See Matter of Alamo v Black, 51 NY2d 716 ; Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772 .) … (Cordero v Maldonado, 89 AD2d 975 .) Here, the referee found a “likelihood” that petitioner had notice even earlier, at least by the prior Wednesday.

Baka v. Board of Education

11 Misc. 2d 441 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1958

Lucio v. … (Haskell v. Miller, 221 App. Div. 48, 49 , affd. 246 N. Y. 618 .) In determining the effect of a release, the basic inquiry is the intention of the parties and the purpose for which the release was given (Simon v.

Zimmele v. American Plaster Board Co.

74 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 648 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1893

Levien v. Board of Zoning & Appeals

64 Misc. 2d 40 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1970

Moreover, the board’s decision, which is annexed as an exhibit to the petition, indicates that it computed the time to appeal from the issuance of the permit, whereas Matter of Pansa v. … Damiano (14 N Y 2d 356) and Matter of Highway Displays v.

Dynamo v. Brown Auto Hospital, Inc.

139 Misc. 867 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1931

(Innis, Pearce & Co. v. Poppenberg, Inc., 213 App. Div. 789, 790 .) The section was not intended to be used to foreclose a proper defense. … (Innis, Pearce & Co. v. Poppenberg, Inc., supra; International Milk Co., Inc., v. Cohen, 219 App. Div. 308 .)

Nickerson v. Board of Supervisors

35 Misc. 2d 1053 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1962

By this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, the petitioners seek, by order in the nature of mandamus, to compel the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nassau to provide funds for the immediate payment … Respondents, the majority of the Board of Supervisors, move to dismiss the petition on the theory that it appears on the face thereof that petitioners can under no circumstances have the relief they seek.

Prindle v. Board of Education

61 Misc. 533 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1908

Crowe v. Lewin, 95 N. Y. 423 ; Smith v. Mackin, 4 Lans. 41 . … Champlin v. Laytin, 18 Wend. 406 ; Belknap v. Sealey, 14 N. Y. 143 .

Boyer v. Board of Education

132 Misc. 2d 282 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1986

(See, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539 [1983]; Lazarus v Board of Educ., 73 AD2d 662 ; Panzeca, Inc. v Board of Educ., 29 NY2d 508.) Said dismissal is without prejudice. … (See, Matter of Baron v Mackreth, 30 AD2d 810 , affd 26 NY2d 1039 ; Dreyfuss v Board of Educ., 72 Misc 2d 703 , revd on other grounds 42 AD2d 845 .)

Napolitano v. Town Board

51 Misc. 3d 206 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 16, 2015

(Id. at 311, quoting Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 778 [1991].) … (See Matter of Eadie v Town Bd. of Town of N.

Long Island City Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Brown

33 Misc. 2d 996 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1962

(McCoy v. Bailey, 24 Misc 2d 875, 876 .) This irregularity “may be corrected *997 * * * in the discretion of the court with or without terms”. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 105.) … Corp. v. Finch, 8 A D 2d 869, 870), or such irregularity may be corrected nunc pro tunc (see Blumberg v. Giorgio, 239 App. Div. 799 , affd. 262 N. Y. 650 ; Sibley Realty Corp. v. Schwab, 11 Misc 2d 997 ).

Ditchik v. State Board of Parole

181 Misc. 346 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1943

Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 97 N. Y. 37 ; Matter of Neddo v. Schrade, 270 N. Y. 97 ; People ex rel. Argus Co. v. Hugo, 101 Misc. 481 .). … (Matter of Fahey v. Wright, 256 App. Div. 474 ; Matter of Spanhake v. Teachers’ Retirement Board, 224 App. Div. 75 , affd. 249 N. Y. 605 .)

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.)

People ex rel. Brown v. Brady

26 Misc. 82 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1899

Kemp v. D’Oench, 111 N. Y. 359 .

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 .

Conlin v. Board of Education

43 Misc. 125 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1904

Ryan v. French, 91 N. Y. 265 ; O’Leary v. Board of Education, 93 id. 1. … Murphy v. Board of Education, 87 App. Div. 277 , supra.

Bradlow v. Board of Elections

144 Misc. 2d 793 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1989

Biller which were previously ruled invalid by the Board of Elections. For his part, Mr. … In rendering its decision in Krueger v Richards (supra), the Court of Appeals did not disapprove of the holding in Halloway v Blakely (supra); it merely noted that the facts in Krueger did not demonstrate the type of "unique

Ambrosio v. Zoning Board of Appeals

196 Misc. 1005 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1949

(Ottinger v. Arenal Realty Co., 257 N. Y. 371, 380 .) A building zone ordinance may empower a board of appeals to attach conditions to a variance. (Matter of Reed v. Board *1009 of Standards & Appeals, 255 N. … Even aside from this provision, the board has always had the power to reconsider where a new situation is presented (Matter of Reed v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 255 N. Y. 126, 133 , supra).

Junar Construction Co. v. Town Board

57 Misc. 2d 727 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1968

Thus, the presumption that the zoning ordinance is ‘ ‘ supported by facts known to the [legislative body] ” (Wiggins v. … In 1957 the exception was re-enacted (see Matter of Cabral v.