Case law

Santos v. Chappell

65 Misc. 2d 559 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1971

Club v. Higgins, 23 F. Supp. 572 ; Kubik v. American Composers Alliance, 54 N. Y. … (See Salzman v. Sakofsky, 195 Misc. 166 ; White v. White, 175 Misc. 66 .)

Heath v. New York Safety Reserve Fund

69 Misc. 452 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1910

Brown, J. On the 7th day of April, 1884, the Southern Tier Masonic Belief Association issued to John S. … of all dues and assessments for which he might become liable and to conform in all respects to the by-laws, rules and regulations of the association then in force or which might thereafter be adopted by the same or its board

People v. Livingston

134 Misc. 2d 711 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1987

(United States v Bonfiglio, 713 F2d 932, 936.) … (See, People v Diaz, supra, at 216-217.)

Browning v. Browning and Edbro Realty Co.

137 Misc. 177 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1930

(Hunt v. Hunt, 171 N. Y. 396 ; 27 C. J. 345.) As the Court of Appeals said in Hunt v. … App. 137; Taylor v. Beach, 1 Ves. Sr. 297; Dundas v. Dutens, 1 Ves. 196; Lassence v. Tierney, 1 McN. & G. 551; Warden v. Jones, 23 Beav. 487; Peek v. Peek, 77 Cal. 106 ; Bradley v. Saddler, 54 Ga. 681 ; McAnnulty v.

People ex rel. McNair v. West

77 Misc. 2d 150 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1974

Menechino v. Warden, 27 N Y 2d 376 [1971]; People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N Y 2d 415 [1971]; People ex rel. Silbert v. Cohen, 29 N Y 2d 12 [1971]). … The nonretroactivity of Morrissey v. Brewer ( 408 U. S. 471 , supra), relied on by the Parole Board, is irrelevant to the issues of this case.

Oliver v. Moore

6 N.Y.S. 413 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1889

The eases upon which the defendant bases his argument that the contract in question here is merely an agreement for *415 board and lodging, and not a lease, are White v. Maynard, supra, and Wilson v. … In Wilson v.

People ex rel. Wohl v. Leo

109 Misc. 448 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1919

the decision of the superintendent of buildings was in form an application to that board for a modification of section 6 of the building zone resolution in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the board by section … The board of appeals had jurisdiction to review the superintendent’s decision under section 719 of the Greater New York charter.

People v. Salaam

174 Misc. 2d 726 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1997

Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219-220 [1978]; Abrahami v UPC Constr. Co., 224 AD2d 231, 233 [1st Dept 1996]). … "We express no opinion on the state law issue of the degree of deference a court should give to the views of the Board” (Doe v Pataki, supra, at 1269, 1281, n 18 ). .

In re Brown

19 Misc. 692 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1897

Brown, having been brought before E. E. … Laughlin v. Finn, 87 N.

Lee v. Parker

43 Barb. 611 · New York Supreme Court · May 2, 1865

In Eagle Fire Company v. … In Lewis v.

Berner v. Schlesinger

11 Misc. 2d 1024 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1957

Nevertheless, the principles underlying the privilege are equally applicable in civil actions or proceedings (Brown v. United States, 234 F. 2d 140, 145-146 ; Matter of Grae, 282 N. Y. 428, 433 ; Siegel v. … Moreover, the waiver is not partial, but complete. “ Having cast aside the cloak of immunity, the party may not resume it at will ” (Brown v.

In re the Arbitration between Carmel Central School District & Carmel Teachers Ass'n

76 Misc. 2d 63 · New York Supreme Court · May 14, 1973

(Maratta) (9 N Y 2d 329); Board of Educ. Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Town of Grand Is. v. … A reading of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Board of Educ. Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Town of Huntington v.

People v. Acklin

102 Misc. 2d 596 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1980

Rensing, 14 NY2d 210 ; People v Maynard, 80 Misc 2d 279 ). … "[TJhose incapable of eloquent expression and abstract thought * * * also deserve a fair hearing” (Matter of Brown v Ristich, 36 NY2d 183, 192 , supra).

Watson v. Butcher

44 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 391 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1885

(dissenting): We think the assignment in question in this case is void, for the reasons stated iu Dunham v. Watermam, ( 17 N. Y., 9 ), and kindred eases. … (Smith v. Beatty, 31 N. Y., 545 .) The assignment being void, it was proper to appoint a receiver in order to preserve the estate and to protect the rights of the plaintiffs and the other creditors. (Bloodgood v.

Chesler v. Bronstein

176 Misc. 2d 237 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1997

. *240 Ariel presently attends Brandéis University, where the total cost of his tuition, room and board, activity fee and health coverage is $29,000 per year. … [Goodwin] v Brown, 229 AD2d 537, 538 [2d Dept 1996]).

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Richards

123 Misc. 83 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1924

Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 84 N. Y. 532 ; Miller v. City of Amsterdam, 149 id. 288; People ex rel. O’Connor v. Board of Supervisors, 153 id. 370. … Hayes v. Waldo, 212 id. 156; People ex rel. Uvalde A. Paving Co. v. Seaman, 217 id. 70; People ex rel. Hallock v. Hennessy, 205 id. 301.

Sheldon v. Russell

91 Misc. 278 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1915

Brown, J. … Co. v. Schuster, 66 Misc. Rep. 634 ; Wood v. Knapp, 100 N. Y. 109 ; City of New York v. Matthews, 180 id. 41; Thompson v. Burhans, 61 id. 63; Peterson v. Martino, 210 id. 412; Caulkins v.

People v. Ross

169 Misc. 2d 308 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1996

Scherz v Dennison, 209 AD2d 200 [1st Dept 1994]). … Scherz v Dennison, supra).

Mirrington v. Vandemark

51 Misc. 2d 305 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1966

Board of Elections of Columbia County, 207 Misc 12, 15 ) in the subscribing witness’ presence in order to be counted. (Matter of Kerns v. Whiting, 187 Misc. 656, 659 .) … (Matter of Fazio v. Meisser, 209 N. Y. S. 2d 17, 18, 19, affd. 11 A D 2d 1029.) The board’s void action is not presumed valid. (Schwartz v. DeSapio, 9 A D 2d 756.)

Partee v. Evans

40 Misc. 3d 896 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2013

If the Parole Board’s decision is made in accordance with the statutory requirements, the Board’s determination is not subject to judicial review. (Matter of De La Cruz v Travis at 789.) … (Matter of King v New York State Div. of Parole, 83 NY2d 788 , 791 [1994]; Graziano v Evans, 90 AD3d 1367 [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Santos v Evans, 81 AD3d 1059, 1060 [3d Dept 2011].)