Case law

McKenna v. Power

24 Misc. 2d 65 · New York Supreme Court · May 17, 1956

It is evident from the petition that by reason of limitation of time this proceeding was commenced prior to the final determination by the Board of Elections, in anticipation of an ultimate adverse decision by the Board of … With respect to the Fifteenth Election District, the address of Mary V. Simendinger, candidate for County Committee, was incorrectly typed on the top of the sheet as “ 42 — 41 248th St., Little Neck.”

Todem Homes, Inc. v. Freidus

84 Misc. 2d 1023 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1975

Bauer v Lovelace, 272 App Div 820 .) … (Oberlies v Bullinger, 132 NY 598 ; Rush v Wagner, 12 NYS 2 ; 10 NY Jur, Contracts, § 315 et seq.)

McCall v. McCall

129 Misc. 127 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1927

The reliance of plaintiff in opposing the motion is based upon the case of Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettebone-Cataract Paper Co. ( 194 App. … (Kelsey v. Kelsey, 237 N. Y. 520 .) Opening his default and referring the requests to the trial justice does not alter the decision in any way. The justice would not have the power to do so if inclined to. (Herpe v.

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Soper

105 Misc. 2d 230 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1980

The Court of Appeals explored the issue further in Matter of Brown v Ristich ( 36 NY2d 183 ). … Teachers Assn., 41 NY2d 578 ; Matter of Associated Teachers of Hungtington v Board of Educ., 33 NY2d 229 ; Matter of Raisler Corp.

East House Corp. v. Riker

72 Misc. 2d 823 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1973

The findings of the board in granting the approval of 155 Dartmouth Street, which were utilized by the two board members who approved the application, were established by the evidence before the board in this proceeding and … (Matter of Grand Chapter Phi Sigma Kappa v. Grosberg, 30 A D 2d 887.)

Wright v. Boller

3 N.Y.S. 742 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1889

Mayor v. Bailey, 2 Denio, 433 ; Ward v. Telegraph Co., 71 N. Y 81. … Buel v. Railroad Co., 31 N. Y. 314 ; Coulter v. Express Co., 56 N. Y. 585 ; Dyer v. Railway Co., 71 N. Y. 228 ; Twomley v. Railroad Co., 69 N. Y. 158 ; Lowery v. Railway Co., 99 N. Y. 158 , 1 N. E. Rep. 608, Sherry v.

Mills v. Mills

36 Barb. 474 · New York Supreme Court · May 12, 1862

(Bell v. Leggett, 3 Comst. 176.) So, also, the same principle has been applied to a contract to obtain signatures to a pardon. … JSmcrtt, Brown, Scrugham and Lott, Justices.] The judgment should be affirmed.

Mason v. American Theatre Wing, Inc.

165 Misc. 2d 432 · New York Supreme Court · May 22, 1995

(Karnstein v Pewaukee School Bd., 557 F Supp 565, 567 [ED Wis]; see also, Dangler v Yorktown Cent. Schools, 771 F Supp 625 [SD NY].) … Corp., 75 NY2d 530 [corporate co-op board action]; Susan M. v New York Law School, 76 NY2d 241 [private law school]) and has been applied by at least one court in a dispute over whether a film warranted the "X” rating assigned

Serval Slide Fasteners, Inc. v. Molfetta

188 Misc. 787 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1947

Oberman & Co., Inc., v. United Garment Workers of America, 21 F. Supp. 20 ; Union Premier Food Stores, Inc., v. Retail Food Clerks and Managers Union, Local No. 1357, 98 F. [2d] 821; Stalban v. … Y. 188 ) and again in Dinny & Robbins, Inc., v. Davis ( 290 N. Y. 101 ). These decisions have been recently followed in Gulf Oil Cory. v. Smallman ( 185 Misc. 409 ) and Coward Shoe, Inc., v.

Ingenito v. Conklin

113 Misc. 2d 420 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1982

The initial proposal made by the board was rejected by the Rockland Supreme Court on May 12, 1969 (Abate v Mundt, 59 Misc 2d 809 , Hawkins, J.). … In Abate v Mundt ( 25 NY2d 309 , supra), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the reapportionment plan adopted by the board of supervisors in Resolution No. 311, 1969, was subject to the amendments contained

109 Beach 29th Street Corp. v. Archer

188 Misc. 769 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1946

Realty Co. v. Walsh ( 203 App. … In Matter of Lyons v.

Bays v. Bays

105 Misc. 492 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1918

The question was again before the Appellate Division of the first department in Brown v. Brown, 153 App. Div. 645 . This was after the Court of Appeals had made the decision in Stokes v. Stokes. … In the Brown case no answer was put in and no equitable defense was pleaded. Clarke, J., says at page 650: “ While the equitable principle, made the basis of our decision in Berry v.

Parsons v. Department of Transportation

74 Misc. 2d 828 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1973

That attention compels demand within a reasonable time after the right to make it occurs (Austin v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 5 N Y 2d 430). … Y. 535 ; City of New York v. Wilson & Co., 278 N. Y. 86 ; New York Tel. Co. v. Board of Educ. of City of Elmira, 270 N. Y. 111 ; 21 N. Y. Jur., Estoppel, § 29).

People ex rel. Cronin v. Buttling

31 N.Y.S. 1131 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1894

Order affirmed on the opinion of Justice Cullen in the case of People v. Jeremiah J. Cronin. Brown, P. J., not sitting.

Bergen v. Mayor of New York

12 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 243 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1875

court to the Fourth District Police Court at a meeting of the board held on that day. … as a court, he would become one of its necessary attendants, and that seeifis to have been the view entertained of the employment by Judge Folgeb, who delivered the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the case of Sullivan v.

People ex rel. Byrnes v. Green

64 Barb. 162 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1872

By the act of 1872, (ch. 9,) the board of audit, &c., was created. … The relators claim that the board should pass and allow the claim at the rate adopted by the board of supervisors. Such was not the direction of the statute. • The board was to audit.

Ungerleider v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp.

164 Misc. 2d 118 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1995

Subsequently, at a Board meeting held on November 30, 1993, a special litigation committee was established to take *120 action on behalf of the Board and the Cooperative with regard to plaintiff’s complaint. … As to what has been uncovered and the relative weight accorded in evaluating and balancing the several factors and considerations are beyond the scope of judicial concern (Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d, supra, at 634).

Enos v. Thomas

4 How. Pr. 48 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1849

In Hough v. … (Leonard v. Vredenburgh, 8 John. 29 ; Hmt v. Brown, 5 Hill, 145 ; Leggett v. Brown, 6 Hill, 639 ; Hall v. Newcomb, 7 Hill, 416 ; Curtis v. Brown , 2 Barb. S. C. Rep. 51; Coddington v. Davis, 1 Comst. 186; Haywood v.

McGrory v. City of New York

30 Misc. 56 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1899

Butler v. Johnson, 111 N. Y. 204 ; Schutz v. Morette, 146 id. 131. The plaintiff relies upon Woods v. Board of Supervisors, 136 N. … to claims not barred, and where it has thus been waived by a board its action binds a succeeding board.

People ex rel. Benedict v. Milleman

128 Misc. 367 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1926

The jurisdiction of the board, therefore, to grant such permission depends upon the fact of a tenement house being “ located ” on a given lot. … (See Matter of Hurwitz v. Moore, 132 App. Div. 29 ; Lakes Island Realty Co. v. McDermott, 96 Misc. 37, 39 .)