Case law

People ex rel. Davis v. Truman

4 Misc. 247 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1893

This proceeding is in the nature of a mandamus to compel the board of excise to grant a license to' the relator. People ex rel. Decker v. Waters, 4 Misc. … Decker v. Waters, 4 Misc.

People v. Jenkins

118 Misc. 2d 530 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1983

Brown’s wallet from her shopping bag and walked away. Mrs. Brown followed the perpetrator, but ultimately lost him. … Correspondingly, a defendant may introduce evidence to show that the object displayed was an unloaded gun (People v Santucci, 48 AD2d 909 ); a toy gun (People v Waddell, 66 AD2d 807 ); a concealed hand (People v Knowles,

City of New York v. DeCosta

176 Misc. 2d 936 · New York Supreme Court · May 26, 1998

’s authority and must be prohibited (Matter of Levitt v Board of Collective Bargaining, supra, at 127). … Limitations on the School Board’s access to a teacher’s personnel file was found to violate the public policy of the School Board’s responsibility to employ only qualified teachers (see, Board of Educ. v Areman, 41 NY2d 527

Kavanaugh v. Commonwealth Trust Co.

64 Misc. 303 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1906

In Hun v. Cary, 82 N. … In Hanna v. Lyon, 179 N.

Everett v. County of Erie

148 Misc. 778 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1933

On April 25, 1933, the plaintiff presented his bill for $3,000 to the board of supervisors of Erie county. It was by resolution of the board referred to the committee on finance. … We are of the opinion the procedure open to those having claims against a county is quite succinctly pointed out in the case of New York Catholic Protectory v. Rockland County ( 212 N.

People ex rel. Tishman & Son v. Cantor

109 Misc. 495 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1919

Central Stamping Co. v. Barker, 86 Hun, 240 ; People ex rel. Littman v. Wells, 91 App. Div. 172 ; People ex rel. Simpson v. Wells, 181 N. Y. 252, 257 ; People ex rel. Chamberlain v. Forrest, 96 id. 544. … Osterhoudt v. Rigney, 98 N. Y. 222 ; People ex rel. Smith v. Clarke, 174 id. 259 . A board of tax assessors is not a continuing entity regardless of changes in its membership. People ex rel. Eckerson v. Zundel, 157 N.

New York Charter Schools Ass'n v. DiNapoli

20 Misc. 3d 235 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 29, 2008

In addition to the traditional forms of municipal government, school districts also had been recognized as “civil division[s] of the state” prior to the adoption of article V, § 1 (Herman v Board of Educ. of Union School … It is clear, however, that certain types of libraries chartered by the Board of Regents as education corporations are not considered political subdivisions of the State (see e.g. French v Board of Educ. of Three Vil.

Mirschel v. Weissenberger

198 Misc. 488 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1950

The petitioners rely upon the case of *490 Matter of Little v. Young ( 274 App. Div. 1005 , affd. 299 N. Y. 699 ). … In addition, there is a serious question as to whether the Village Law has granted to a board of appeals such power as is here proposed to be exercised by such board.

North Crystal Gardens, Inc. v. Bell

44 Misc. 2d 449 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1964

(Matter of Deering Realty Corp. v. Podeyn, 18 A D 2d 821.) … At the present stage of this proceeding, no substantial right of the School Board or of the respondent will be prejudiced by permitting service on the board. (People ex rel. Di Leo v. Edwards, 247 App. Div. 331 .)

Grossman v. MKF Realty Corp.

155 Misc. 2d 841 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1992

of the statute and those owners who have not been found by the Loft Board to have been in violation of the statute. … (See, County Dollar Corp. v Douglas, 160 AD2d 537 [1st Dept 1990].)

Connolly v. Kennedy

9 Misc. 2d 49 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1957

They concede, however, that the conclusion of the medical board and the majority of the special medical board to the effect that his present condition is not the result of his 1936 injuries is advisory only. … It therefore follows that this case is closely analogous to Matter of O’Hara v. Monaghan ( 309 N. Y. 931 ) where the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion a decision of the Appellate Division ( 286 App.

Reich v. Cochran

26 N.Y.S. 443 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1893

In Brown v. Mayor, etc., 66 N. Y. 385 , and in Jarvis v. Driggs, 69 N. … Y. 146 , the extent to which the question of res adjudicata will be applied, showing that it includes summary proceedings, is fully stated; and, in the opinion in the latter case, the court, commenting upon Brown v.

Berg v. Michaelis

37 Misc. 2d 1076 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1963

(Matter of Taub v. Pirnie, 3 N Y 2d 188,195.) … Larkin, 11 N Y 2d 20, 24; Matter of Rothstein v. County Operating Co., 6 N Y 2d 728).

Kupferman v. Katz

41 Misc. 2d 124 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1963

Associates v. Barr, 1 N Y 2d 413, 420; Matter of City of New York [Ely Ave.], 217 N. Y. 45, 59 ; Matter of Herlands v. Surpless, 258 App. Div. 275, 277, 280 , affd. 282 N. Y. 647 ). … The case of Matter of Astwood v. Cohen ( 291 N. Y. 484 ) relied on by the petitioner, is not in point.

In re Singer

189 Misc. 150 · New York Supreme Court · May 9, 1947

a new board of directors.” … In Cuppy v. Stollwerck Brothers, Inc., ( 216 N.

Martin v. Reuning

194 Misc. 2d 701 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 6, 2003

(See Matter of Northrup v Kirwan, 88 Misc 2d 255, 261-262 , affd 57 AD2d 699 .) … (170 AJD2d 708), Matter of Banker v Kalil ( 182 AD2d 895 ), Matter of Matthews v Gulotta ( 198 AD2d 280 ), and Eisberg v Dutchess County Legislature ( 37 F Supp 2d 283 [SD NY 1999]), all decided since the 1984 amendment

Stevens v. Benton

2 Lans. 156 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1869

One answered fifty dollars; and most of them stated that, without board, his services would be worth ' fifty dollars or upward per month. It is supposed, by the defendant’s counsel, upon the authority of Lewis v. … In Williams v.

Gilgar v. Low

38 Misc. 292 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1902

that the board of estimate and apportionment cannot re-open and change it. … The object of the taxpayers’ act was to enable taxpayers to bring suits which the city could and should bring, hut failed to bring (Rogers v. O’Brien, 153 N. Y. 357 ).

Coven v. Previte

88 Misc. 2d 160 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1976

The Board of Elections has no power to reject a petition because of facts not appearing on the face therein. (Schwartz v Heffernan, 304 NY 474 ; Matter of McGovern, 291 NY 104, 108 .) … (Corrigan v Board of Elections of Suffolk County,; 38 AD2d 825 , affd 30 NY2d 603 ; Quinn v Kehoe, 61 Misc 2d 392 ; Periconi v Power, 48 Misc 2d 391 .)

Namro Holding Corp. v. City of New York

31 Misc. 2d 480 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1961

Realty Co. v. Walsh, ( 203 App. … R. 1378-1398.) ” In People v.