Case law

Coram v. Board of Examiners, Sex Offender Registry

195 Misc. 2d 392 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 21, 2003

(See Middendorf v Henry, supra, 425 US at 31-33 .) … (See, e.g., United States v Rogers, 17 MJ 990 [AMCR 1984]; United States v Kuehl, supra, 11 MJ at 127 n 2.)

Board of Supervisors v. Bristol

22 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 116 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1878

In the case of Bissell v. Saxton ( 66 N. Y., 55 ), it is said of similar reports that they were subject to explanation by the sureties, and not conclusive against them. … Bank v. Darragh, 8 Sup. Ct. N. Y., 111.) We have, also, the testimony of Van Voorhies, the successor of Bristol, who testifies, in substance, that certain funds were not paid to him.

People ex rel. Doherty v. Board of Police Com'rs

32 N.Y.S. 18 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1895

So, in People v. Board of Police 96 N. Y. 333 , a patrolman was dismissed from the force upon evidence taken before one of the commissioners sitting alone. … Other authorities tending in the same general direction are People v. Robb, 126 N. Y. 180 , 27 N. E. 267 ; People v. Board of Police, 93 N. Y. 97 ; People v. Purroy (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 345 .

Danis v. Commissioners of the Board of Elections

30 Misc. 2d 133 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1961

Oakes was filed with the Board of Elections at *134 1:25 p.m. on August 8,1961, and at 4:00 p.m. on the same day, a petition on behalf of Barbara S. Danis and Joseph M. Oakes was also filed with the Board of Elections. … Murphy and Lucille Johnson was filed with the Board of Elections at 1:25 p.m. on August 8,1961, and a petition on behalf of Caesar J. Mauti and John A. Murphy was filed with the board on the same day at 4:00 p.m.

Prieto v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

117 Misc. 703 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1922

S. 158 ; Chelentis v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 247 id. 372; Kennedy v. Cunard S. S. Co., 197 App. Div. 459 . … Justice Hotchkiss in Nox v. U. S. Shipping Board, N. Y. L. J., Jan. 3, 1622, seems to me to be convincing. Motion granted.

People ex rel. Steingoetter v. Board of Canvassers

2 N.Y.S. 561 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1888

This was done by the board. … Osterhoudt v. Board, 98 N. Y. 239 ; Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344 , 4 N. E. Rep. 734.

Pennington v. Board of Assessors of Alexandria Bay

34 Misc. 2d 336 · New York Supreme Court · May 12, 1962

The same question has been decided by Matter of Greystone Holding Corp. v. Lennox ( 197 Misc. 463, 464 , affd. 279 App. Div. 595 ) in its holding that “ There is no provision for service by mail ”.

Luongo v. Records Access Officer, Civilian Complaint Review Board

49 Misc. 3d 708 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2015

Luongo, the Attorney-in-Chief of Legal Aid Society’s criminal defense practice, seeks an order pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR directing the respondent Records Access *710 Officer of the New York Civilian Complaint Review Board … (Telesford v Patterson, 27 AD3d 328, 330 [1st Dept 2006], citing Taran v State of New York, 140 AD2d 429, 432 [2d Dept *715 1988].)

Sommer v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board

115 Misc. 2d 820 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1982

By this article 78 proceeding petitioner landlord seeks to. set aside a determination by respondent Conciliation and Appeals Board which found that apartment 24E in the premises at 425 East 58th Street, Manhattan, is a primary … The holding in Matter of Walter & Samuels v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd. ( 81 AD2d 212 , app dsmd 55 NY2d 824 ), relied upon by petitioner, is not contrary to this analysis.

People ex rel. Pitts v. Board of Supervisors

63 Barb. 83 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1872

J., in Dash v. … Bleakley v.

Oakwood Island Yacht Club, Inc. v. Board of Appeals

32 Misc. 2d 677 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1961

The board does not exercise inherent power and is not a free agent. (De Ville Homes v. Michaelis, 201 N. Y. S. 2d 129, 130; Matter of Pearson v. Shoemaker, 25 Misc 2d 591 ; Matter of Vit-Al Bldg. Corp. v. … Co. v. Ruge, 141 Misc. 913 , affd. 235 App. Div. 627 ; Matter of Small v. Moss, 279 N. Y. 288, 297 ; Matter of Picone v. Commissioner of Licenses, 241 N. Y. 157, 161 ; Matter of Lyons v. Prince, 281 N. Y. 557, 561 .)

Netupsky v. New York State Board of Regents

95 Misc. 2d 763 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1978

Board of Educ., 35 NY2d 534, 541 ; Charow v Whalen, Supreme Ct, Westchester County, June 5, 1978, Rubin, J.). … The petitioner points out that, if the Legislature fails to enact particular legislation, the respondent Board of Regents may not fill the ’void by issuing a rule pursuant to section 207 of the Education Law (Moore v Board

People ex rel. Dinsmore v. Croton Aqueduct Board

6 Abb. Pr. 42 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1857

The fact of such rejection was publicly announced by the board, and notice thereof given on the spot to Dinsmore. … (People v. The Canal Board, 13 Barb., 443 ; People v. The Supervisors of Columbia County, 10 Wend., 366 .)

Clark v. Town Board of Clarkstown

37 Misc. 3d 671 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 7, 2012

The statute of limitations for article 78 proceedings is four months (CPLR 217; Baez v Brown, 98 AD3d 609 [2d Dept 2012]). … Corp. v McBarnette, 84 NY2d 194 [1994]; see also New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v Bane, 87 NY2d 399 [1995]).

People ex rel. Delvechio v. Board of Supervisors

23 How. Pr. 89 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1862

Brown, Justice. … The board of supervisors made their return to the writ, answering the material allegations thereof, and denying any legal liability on their part to audit and pay the claim.

John Civetta & Sons, Inc. v. Environmental Control Board

116 Misc. 2d 602 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1982

Co. v New York Transp. Admin., 44 AD2d 784 .) … (Matter of Johnson v Joy, 48 NY2d 689 ; Matter of Hess [Ross], 70 AD2d 374 , affd 51 NY2d 318 .)

King v. Lowry

20 Barb. 532 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1855

The plaintiffs proved that the supplies were delivered on board the Pacific, that they rendered a bill to Brown, that it was last seen in his possession, and that it had been inspected by the other defendants. … Schermerhorn v. Loines, ( 7 John. 311 ;) Muldon v. Whitlock, (1 Cowen, 290,) and Higgins v. Packard, ( 2 Hall, 547 ,) are conclusive on this point, and have never been questioned. 2.

Board of Supervisors v. McQueen

22 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 551 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1878

power .in the plaintiff to enter into it, in ,so far as it relates to the provision sought to be enforced by the defendant, on which the alleged breach is.based. .This .objection is answered by the decision,in De Groff v.

Reformed Protestant Dutch Church of Westfield, Staten Island v. Brown

24 How. Pr. 89 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1861

People ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Board of Supervisors

22 How. Pr. 71 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1861

The want of funds is no reason why the board should not audit such an account, though it might necessarily delay the payment. The order appealed from is affirmed, with ten dollars costs.