Case law

Niver v. Rossman

18 Barb. 50 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1853

This decision followed and was in accordance with that of Astley v. … Gray v. Crosby, 18 John. 219, 226 . 4 Wend. 468 .)

Herald Co. v. School District

104 Misc. 2d 1041 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1980

(Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ., 50 AD2d 149 , opp dsmd 39 NY2d 1057 ; Matter of Hodgkins v Board of Educ., 50 AD2d 73 , revd on other grounds 41 NY2d 962 ; Matter of Mockler v Ambach, 100 Misc 2d 717 ; see, also, Matter … of McAulay v Board of Educ., 61 AD2d 1048 , affd 48 NY2d 659 .)

Moore v. Sunshine

126 Misc. 2d 284 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1984

Respondents cite Matter of Irwin v Board of Regents ( 27 NY2d 292 ) and Matter of Whalen v John P. ( 72 AD2d 961 ) for the proposition that the court may not involve itself with the issuance of subpoenas before an agency … [a]), with respect to *286 administrative boards, governs the issuance of subpoenas by those boards not already granted this power by statute, and as to those administrative boards to whom a specific grant of subpoena power

In re Arbitration between American Federation & Allied Mills, Inc.

196 Misc. 517 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1949

In the decision in Inland Steel Co. v. … Y. 541, 543 ; Matter of Bullard v. Grace Co., 240 N. Y. 388, 397 .)

Fraydun Enterprises v. Deutsch

124 Misc. 2d 470 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1984

Thus, no finding of fact by the Department or the Board as to timely completion can be at issue here. … Accordingly, the August 16, 1983 resolution adopted by the Board of Standards and Appeals is hereby vacated.

Finnegan v. Cohen

177 Misc. 142 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1941

(Matter of Powers v. Coughlin, 268 N. Y. 623 .) … (See Surace v. Danna, 248 N. Y. 18, 21 .)

Town of Hempstead v. Lynne

32 Misc. 2d 312 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1961

The legislative act of the Town Board in amending the ordinance is presumptively valid (Shepard v. Village of Skaneateles, 300 N. … (See Matter of Golden City Park Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 263 App. Div. 52, 54 ; affd. 289 N. Y. 720 .)

Hassett v. Barnes

21 Misc. 2d 895 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1959

(Matter of Peruzzin v. Test, 282 App. Div. 550, 551 [4th Dept.]; Austin v. Board of Higher Educ., 5 N Y 2d 430, 442; Matter of Wilsey v. Johnson, 4 A D 2d 734; Matter of De Lack v. Greene, 170 Misc. 309, 312 .) … Wood v. Board of Assessors, 137 N. Y. 201, 204 .)

Village of Williston Park v. Israel

191 Misc. 6 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1948

In the resolution of the board of trustees of June 17, 1927, which purported to enact the ordinance, the following appeared: “ * * * Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Williston Park … (Merritt v. Village of Port Chester, 71 N. Y. 309 .) ” The village relies upon the case of Village of Northport v. Walsh ( 241 App. Div. 683 , affd. 265 N.

Terry v. Dayton

31 Barb. 519 · New York Supreme Court · May 14, 1860

Brown, J. Clark Hulsej the husband of Mary E. … In Williams v.

Lawrence v. Whitney

9 N.Y. St. Rep. 389 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1887

Cas., 174 ; Hall v. Benner, 1 Penn. Rep., 402; S. C., 21 Am. Dec., 394 ; Van Hoesen v. Holley, 9 Wend., 209 ; Demeyer v. Legg, 18 Barb., 14 . … Doe v. Shelton, 3 A. & E., 265.

People ex rel. Stemmler v. McGuire

9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 269 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

De Fonclear v. Shottenkirk, 3 John., 170 , 175 ; Bunn v. Hoyt, id., 255 ; Harrington v. Bigelow, 2 Denio, 109 ; Powell v. Jones, 42 Barb., 24 . 27 N. Y., 45 . 55 N. Y., 525 . Dobson v. Pearce, 2 Kern., 156; Warner v. … Merritt v. Seaman, 2 Seld., 168.

Barringer v. President of Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.

26 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 216 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1879

So Brown’s position was that of an employe, and not a representative of the company. Such is the reasoning upon the facts. The authorities aid us somewhat by way of analogy. In Malone v. Hathaway ( 64 N. … Searle v. Lindsay (11 C. B. [N. S.], 429) resembles this case closely. Plaintiff was third engineer on a. *220 .steamer.

People ex rel. United Natural Gas Co. v. Priest

70 Misc. 69 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1910

Brown, J. … Retsof Mining Co. v. Priest, 75 App. Div. 131 , for the reason that the special franchise sought to be taxed in that case was not a franchise of any character.

Des Jardins v. Nieman

91 Misc. 2d 26 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1977

In any event, such a challenge would have to be made in an article 78 proceeding (860 Executive Towers v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 53 AD2d 463, 474 ). … Thus, this court finds that the State board is not a necessary party herein. Motion denied.

People v. Axentiou

158 Misc. 2d 19 · New York Supreme Court · May 19, 1993

This holding was contrary to a previous holding in People v Brown ( 69 Misc 2d 412 [Suffolk County Ct 1972]), that Suffolk County did not have venue of the larceny of proceeds of a sale of land located in that county, where … The court in Crean distinguished Brown on the grounds that Brown was limited to considering whether an element of the offense occurred in Suffolk County.

Ross v. Specialty Insulation Manufacturing Co.

96 Misc. 2d 940 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1978

(Local 58, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Amer., AFL-CIO, v Sun Prods. Corp., 521 F2d 1286; Watson v Prentice-Hall, 50 AD2d 1077 .) … (Kushlin v Bialer, 32 AD2d 217, 218 , app dsmd 26 NY2d 748 .)

Mollineaux v. Michaelis

29 Misc. 2d 933 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1961

While the respondents have some discretion, that discretion must be exercised within the standards and guides laid down by the Town Board (Matter of Bologno v. O’Connell, 7 N Y 2d 155). … Matter of Syosset Holding Corp. v. Schlimm, 15 Misc 2d 10 , mod. 4 A D 2d 766) ”. (Matter of Rhodes v. Waters, 15 Misc 2d 119, 123 .)

Iazzetti v. Village of Tuxedo Park

145 Misc. 2d 78 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1989

Also to be considered is, "a fundamental principle of zoning that a zoning board is charged with the regulation of land use and not with the person who owns or occupies it” (Matter of Dexter v Town Bd., 36 NY2d 102, 105 [ … The Board’s interpretation of its own ordinance must have a rational basis (FGL&L Prop. Corp. v City of Rye, supra; see also, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 NY2d 591 , 599 [1977]).

Fox v. Cody

141 Misc. 552 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1930

In Toledo Traction, Light & Power Co. v. Smith ( 205 Fed. 643 ) the court said that the power to remove a director for cause inheres in every corporation. … Manice v. Powell, 201 N. Y. 194, 202 .) The cases cited by plaintiff are not to the contrary. In Raub v. Gerken ( 127 App.