Case law

Typothetæ of New York v. Typographical Union No. 6

117 N.Y.S. 144 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1906

Negus v. Dwyer, 90 N. Y. 402 ), while a proceeding whereby a criminal court vindicates its authority is not (90 N. Y. page 407; People, etc., v. Gilmore, 88 N. Y. 627 ; People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes, 143 N. … The distinction noted, therefore, in Stafford v.

North American Holding Corp. v. Murdock

9 Misc. 2d 632 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1957

Justice Hookak reversed and annulled the resolution of the board which had granted the variance. The Appellate Division affirmed, no opinion (Matter of Drake Holding Corp. v. Murdock, 253 App. … (Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N. Y. 71 .)

Van Buskirk v. Bleiler

77 Misc. 2d 273 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1974

Defendants maintain that the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for a Board of Education is a corporate body which can only act as a unit and not as individuals *274 (Herman v. Board of Educ., 234 N. … Y. 196 ) and therefore the defendants cannot be held personally liable (Bassett v. Fish, 75 N. Y. 303 ; Johnson v. Board of Educ., 210 App. Div. 723 ).

Art Steel Co. v. Velazquez

201 Misc. 141 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1952

Co. v. Durkin, 301 N. … (See Allen-Bradley Local v. Board, 315 U. S. 740 ; Auto Workers v. Wis. Board, 336 U. S. 245 ; Automobile Workers v. O’Brien, 339 U. S. 454 ; Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U.

Town of Stony Point v. McDonnell

70 Misc. 2d 490 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1972

Under these circumstances, the court finds that plaintiff has met the test handed down by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Albini v. … McDonough, 9 A D 2d 113; Barricini, Inc. v. Barricini Shoes, 1 A D 2d 905; Gilbert v. Burnside, 6 AD 2d 834 ).”

Erhard v. Kings County

36 N.Y.S. 656 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1895

Brady v. Supervisors, 10 N. Y. 260 ; Boyce v. Supervisors, 20 Barb. 294 ; Adams v. Supervisors, 66 Barb. 368 ; Martin v. Supervisors, 29 N. Y. 645 ; People v. Supervisors of Livingston Co., 12 How. Prac. 204 ; People v. … See People v. Supervisors of Madison Co., 51 N. Y. 442 ; Boyce v. Supervisors, 20 Barb. 294 ; Chase v. Saratoga Co., 33 Barb. 603 ; Albrecht v. County of Queens, 84 Hun, 399 , 32 N. Y. Supp. 473 ; People v.

Meeker v. Van Rensselaer

15 Wend. 397 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1836

In the case of Wormer v. … boards.

Jones v. Morrill

42 Barb. 623 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1864

By the act of the legislature passed in 1860, “for the protection of boarding housekeepers” (Sess. … (Connell v. Cooke, 3 Hill, 485 .)

Arnold v. Foot

12 Wend. 330 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1834

The general principle laid down by Lord Ellenborough in Bealey v. … This proposition has often been quoted with approbation and adopted by this court, and recently in the case of Crooker v. Bragg, 10 Wendell, 264 . The case of Brown v.

Park West Village Associates v. Abrams

127 Misc. 2d 372 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1984

Co. v Board of Supervisors ( 16 NY 424 ), set forth the applicable rules. … (Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 John., 447 ; Ogden v. Blackledge, 2 Cranch, 272 .)” (Pp 431-432.)

Ungar v. Wagner

22 Misc. 2d 403 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1960

Wooster v. Maher, 141 N. Y. 330 ). Inquiry is therefore directed to whether any ministerial act which the board is directed by law to perform has been refused. … Housing Act and to report thereon to the board.

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v. SDI, Inc.

51 Misc. 3d 1230A · New York Supreme Court · Jun 7, 2016

Kletter Brown Rudnick LLP For Defendant: Joel M. Miller and Nicholas Cutaia Miller & Wrubel P.C. Eileen Bransten, J. … See, e.g., Shisgal v. Brown , 21 AD3d 845 , 847 (1st Dep't 2005) (noting that intent "is ordinarily a question of fact which cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment").

People ex rel. Conine v. County of Steuben

41 Misc. 590 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1903

The case of the Board of Supervisors v. Otis is cited in support of this contention. … Board of Supervisors v. Jones, 119 N. Y. 339 .

Hulbert v. Craig

124 Misc. 273 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1925

I Finally the petitioner contends that inasmuch as the president If the board of aldermen is a member of the board of aldermen, lhat body is the sole judge of his tenure. … Cutts v. Hart, 56 Mont. 571 .) *280 In People ex rel. Sherwood v. Board of Canvassers ( 129 N.

Osborn v. Thomson

103 Misc. 23 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1918

Wansboro, of the board of examiners, was not 'called. Dr. … A similar law has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the ease of Smith v. Board of Examiners, 88 Atl. Rep. 963 , in an opinion written by Judge Garrison.

People ex rel. Nelson v. Hammock

96 Misc. 2d 776 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1978

Diaz v Superintendent ( 90 Misc 2d 1000 ) wherein Judge Joseph Jiudice held that the board, then acting pursuant to 7 NYCRR 1925.35 could not bifurcate the final revocation hearing. … Riley v Board (Supreme Ct, Westchester County, Aug. 30, 1978) to the effect that since it has now been more than one year since the enactment of article 12-B of the Executive Law and since specific implementation of sections

Mockler v. Ambach

100 Misc. 2d 717 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1979

Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 , 233). … Since this court believes that this conduct, without more, posed a substantial "risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally” (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra, p 234), the judiciary cannot

Hyde & Everit v. Cookson

21 Barb. 92 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 2, 1855

Bronson, delivered in Mallory v. Willis, (4 Comst. 76,) and recognized and approved in Foster v. … (Brown v. Sax, 7 Cowen, 95. Baker v. Wheeler, 8 Wend. 505 . Rightmyer v. Raymond, 12 id. 51. Martin v. Porter 5 Mees. & Welsh. 352. Wild v. Hold, 9 id. 672.) In Pierce v. Schenck, ( 3 Hill, 28,) Mr.

Kent v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

200 Misc. 101 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1950

S. 377 ; Venner v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 271 U. S. 127 ; see, also, Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239 ). … That provision establishes the exclusive method for the review of the validity of board orders (Sykes v. Jenny Wren Co., 78 F. 2d 729 ; see, also, Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41 ).

In re the Board of Water Supply

81 Misc. 19 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1913

In Central Coal & Coke Co. v. … In Dickinson v. Hart, 142 N.