Case law

People ex rel. Rice v. Board of Auditors of Hannibal

20 N.Y.S. 165 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1892

In Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N. … See, also, People v. Supervisors Queens Co., 82 N. Y. 275 ; People v. Reddy, 43 Barb. 539 ; People v. Supervisors Rensselaer Co., 34 Hun, 266 ; People v. Tompkins, 40 Hun, 228 .

Stillman v. School District & Board of Education of Rockville Centre

60 Misc. 2d 819 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1969

of Educ. v. … Matter of Horowitz v. Board of Educ. of Yonkers, 217 App. Div. 233, 238 ).

Officer v. Board of Home Missions

54 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 352 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1888

(Bogert v. Hertell, 4 Hill, 500 ; Dorland v. Dorland, 2 Barb., 80 .) … (Savage v. Burnham, 17 N.

City of Buffalo v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment

44 Misc. 2d 716 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1964

(Central Westchester Humane Soc. v. Hilleboe, 202 Misc. 873 .)

Town of Moreau v. County of Saratoga

134 Misc. 2d 380 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1987

Brown, J. … Martin v Brown, supra; Ross v Curtiss, 31 NY 606 .) In summary, the court finds that the plaintiffs-petitioners have no standing, and the motion to dismiss is granted on that ground.

Abrams v. Board of Town Auditors

52 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 272 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1887

(Francis v. The Common Council, 78 N. Y., 33 .) Here the board has not refused to exercise its functions; on the contrary, it has acted upon the matter at appellant’s request. … Faile v. Ferris, 16 Hun, 219 ; S. C., 76 N. Y., 326 .) But aside from any technical question the decision of the board was right upon the merits.

Coalition Against Rent Increase Passalongs v. Rent Guidelines Board

104 Misc. 2d 101 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1979

C. v Rent Guidelines Bd. for City of N. … Golden v Koch, 98 Misc 2d 972 ). .

Birckhead & Carlisle v. William, George, John A., James & Stewart Brown

5 Hill & Den. 634 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1843

(Robbins v. Bingham, 4 John. 476 ; Walsh v. Bailie, 10 id. 180.) Now in this case the letters were special. They were addressed to Messrs. W. and J. Brown & Co., Liverpool, and to no one else. … They only requested Brown & Co. to accept, and undertook to keep them indemnified. That was not a negotiable promise upon which the plaintiffs can sue. The case of Carnegie v.

People ex rel. Oppenheimer Publishing & Printing Co. v. People

30 N.Y.S. 878 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1894

BROWN, P. J. This proceeding is a certiorari to review the action of the board of town auditors in auditing and allowing the claim of the relator. … It was said in People v. Board of Town Auditors, 74 Hun, 83 , 26 N. Y.

Cincinnati National Bank v. Tilden

22 N.Y.S. 11 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1893

Brown from the Messrs. … The following authorities-sustain our conclusion: Miltenberger v. Railway Co., 106 U. S. 307 , 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; Keogh v. McManus, 34 Hun, 521 ; Williamson v. Gerlach, 41 Ohio St. 682 ; Beach, Rec. § 554.

Two Spring Associates v. New York City Loft Board

2 Misc. 3d 530 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2003

under the terms of Loft Board Order No. 1. … Bank of N.Y. v Montague St.

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Interborough News Co.

170 Misc. 347 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1939

It is for the Board, not for the court, to draw inferences from the evidence (National Labor Relations Board v. Oregon Worsted Co., 94 F. [2d] 671; National Labor Relations Board v. … (National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson *350 Products, Inc., 97 F. [2d] 13, 15; National Labor Relations Board v. Union Pacific Stages, Inc., 99 id. 153 ; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Company, Inc., v.

Miller v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Saratoga Springs

176 Misc. 2d 383 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1998

The first case is Matter of Proskin v Donovan ( 150 AD2d 937 , lv denied 75 NY2d 702 ). … The duty of a court is to review zoning determinations, not make them” (Matter of Nash v Denison, 175 AD2d 436, 437 ).

Salomon Bros. v. West Virginia State Board of Investments

152 Misc. 2d 289 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1990

The West Virginia State Board of Investments (Investment Board) directed the investment of State and local government funds through the Consolidated Fund. … The trades that the Investment Board ordered did occur in New York.

People ex rel. Emerson v. Board of Aldermen of Buffalo

20 N.Y.S. 1 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1892

Mandamus will lie to compel the performance of an official duty, clearly prescribed by law on the part of a public officer or board. The case of People v. Schiellein, 95 N. … Y. 125 , is abundant authority for the application of this rule to the case of a board of canvassers, and the case of People v. Board of Sup'rs of Chenango Co., 8 N.

People ex rel. Turetsky v. Jewish Board of Guardians

28 Misc. 2d 758 · New York Supreme Court · May 6, 1952

Judge Sicher committed the child to the care of the Jewish Board of Guardians and the Hawthorne-Cedar Knolls School, after the said agency had accepted the placement of the child. … Hubert v. Kaiser, 206 N. Y. 46 ; People ex rel. Doyle v. Atwell, 232 N. Y. 96 .) The court perceives no need for an inquiry into the conditions under which the infant is presently held by respondents.

New York State Employees' Retirement System v. Board of Supervisors

157 Misc. 87 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 13, 1935

Shlomberg, 70 Miss. 47 ; 11 So. 721 ; Board of Trustees v. Board of Supervisors of Orange County, 99 Cal. 571 ; 34 P. 244 ; Board of Supervisors v. Bowen, 4 Lans. 24, 30 ; 2 McQuillin Mun. … Carlisle v. Board of Supervisors, 217 N. Y. 424 ; People ex rel. Brewster v. Board, etc., 219 id. 582.) ! Submit order accordingly.

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Toffenetti Restaurant Co.

180 Misc. 326 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1943

It is now an inescapable rule that if the findings of the Labor Eelations Board are predicated on substantial evidence, they are universally conclusive. In Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc., v. Boland ( 282 N. … The Board followed the course prescribed by the Act and as the Act is constitutional (Met. Life *329 Ins. Co. v. Labor Relations Board, 280 N. Y. 194 ) this protest is untenable.

Golomb v. Board of Education of City School District

106 Misc. 2d 264 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1980

Petitioner, as a probationary employee, has no independent constitutional right to permanent employment or due process to termination (Board of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564 ; Longarzo v Anker, 578 F2d 469). … He need not set forth findings or reasons for its determination (Matter of McAulay v Board of Educ., 61 AD2d 1048 ).

Swarts v. Board of Education of the City School District

42 Misc. 2d 761 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1964

S. 2d 511; Crummey v. Murray, 130 Misc. 378 ; Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Supreme Lodge, 112 N. Y. S. 2d 61; Finnegan v. Butler, 112 Misc. 280 .) … (Metzger Co. v. Fay, 4 AD 2d 436 ; see, also, Belmont Quadrangle Drilling Corp. v. Galek, 137 Misc. 637 and Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Billy Rose Exposition Spectacles, 14 N. Y. S. 2d 301.)