Case law

Oppenheim Apparel Corp. v. Cruise

118 Misc. 368 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1922

Coach Co. v. City of New York, 194 N. … Coach Co. v. City of New York, supra. I incline to the belief that this contention suggests plaintiffs’ *372 real grievance.

Mott v. New York Security & Trust Co.

29 Misc. 39 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1899

It was held in Catlin v. Green, 120 N. … As was said in Simson v. Brown, 68 N.

Security National Bank v. Village Mall at Hillcrest, Inc.

79 Misc. 2d 1060 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1974

(See Sugar v. Curtis Circulation Co., 74 Civ. 78 [Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.].) The court finds that the issuance of the ex parte order was not constitutionally defective. … The operation of the condominium is the responsibility of the board of managers.

Richards v. Robin

86 Misc. 528 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1914

Johnson v. Underhill, 52 N. Y. 203, 211 ; Sigua Iron Co. v. Brown, 171 id. 488, 500; Grissell v. Bristowe, L. R. (3 C. P.) 112. In Grissell v. … This language is quoted with approval in Johnson v. Underhill, supra, 212 . The latter case, laying down the rule above stated, is cited with ap *533 proval in Sigua Iron Co. v. Brown, supra, 500.

Abdullah v. Smith

115 Misc. 2d 105 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1982

(Matter of Brown v McGinnis, 10 NY2d 531, 535-536 .) … , 530 , cited in Matter of Brown v McGinnis, 10 NY2d, at p 536 ).

McSwyny v. Broadway & Seventh-Avenue Railroad

7 N.Y.S. 456 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1889

Eppendorf v. Railroad Co., 69 N. Y. 195 . … This was done in Adams v. People, 63 N. Y. 621 , as to the condition of a person’s eye-sight; and so it was in People v. Eastwood, 14 N.

Bennett v. Abrams

41 Barb. 619 · New York Supreme Court · May 5, 1863

(Witbeck v. Waine, 16 N. Y. Rep. 532 .) It was held in Atwood v. … The decision in Malins v. Brown, ( 4 N. Y.

In re Gaffney

91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 503 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1895

(Shay v. Trustees Brooklyn Bridge, 39 N. Y. St. Repr. 856.) The Special Term of this court, affirmed by the General Term, held that the laohes of one year and six months rendered reinstatement *504 impossible. … Hayden v. City Court of Brooklyn, July 31, 1890.) I recommend affirmance. Brown, R. J., and Dyicmmn, J., concurred. Order affirmed, with costs.

Town of Amherst v. County of Erie

143 Misc. 540 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1932

No option is given to the board of supervisors to depart from the town budget as submitted by the town board. … (Furey v. Town of Graves-end, 104 N. Y. 405 ; McKuskie v. Hendrickson, 128 id. 555 ; People ex rel. McCann v. Kilbourn, 68 id. 479, 482 ; P. R. T. Co. v. Dash, 125 id. 93.)

Burger King Corp. v. Village of Larchmont

89 Misc. 2d 901 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1975

(See Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning [4th ed], ch 4, p 4-5; Matter of Bonan Realty Corp. v Young, 16 Misc 2d 119 .) … Corp. v Murdock, 285 NY 298 ; Matter of Salem Trader Rest. Inc. v Reitfort, 63 Misc 2d 753 .)

Municipal Art Society v. City of New York

137 Misc. 2d 832 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1987

In February 1987 both the Board of the TBTA and the Board of Estimate approved the project. … of zoned areas from encroachments of uses which devaluate living conditions” (Lavere v Board of Zoning Appeals, 39 AD2d 639 , ajfd 33 NY2d 873 ), with its goal being "to provide for the development of a balanced, cohesive

Enoch v. Brandon

128 Misc. 695 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1927

(See Hibbs v. Brown, 112 App. Div. 214 ; affd., 190 N. … As was stated by Laughlin, J., in Hibbs v. Brown ( 112 App. Div. 214, 222 ), the case of McClelland v. Norfolk Southern R. R. Co. ( 110 N.

Moore v. Delaney

180 Misc. 844 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1943

Burby v. Howland, 155 N. Y. 270, 282 ; People v. Perretta, 253 N. Y. 305, 313 ; Matter of LaGuardia v. Smith, 288 N. Y. 1 , dissenting opinion by Lehman, Ch. … (Matter of Spector v. Allen, 281 N. Y. 251, 257, 258 .)

Scheinberg v. United Medical Service, Inc.

42 Misc. 2d 125 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1964

They cite cases holding that the same word or term may have different connotations, different meanings in different contexts (see Board v. Hearst Pubs., 322 U. S. 111 , 121-122 ; Towne v. Eisner, 245 U. … Co., 238 F. 2d 594 ; Drearr v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 119 So. 2d 149 [La. Ct. of App.]; cf. Theriot v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Cory., 131 So. 2d 94 [La. Ct. of App.]; Gordon v. Fidelity & Cas.

People ex rel. Kanouse v. Judges of New-York Common Pleas

2 Denio 197 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1846

(Sprag gins v. The County Court of Humphries, 1 Cooke, 160.) And I am not aware that any of the federal courts have questioned their power to act in the same manner. … I am aware that the court of appeals in Virginia awarded a mandam is to an inferior court in that state, to compel the removal of a cause into the circuit court of the United States; (Brown v.

Schieffelin v. Henry

123 Misc. 792 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1924

In 1924 the board adopted this resolution: “Resolved that the board of estimate and apportionment, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 758 of the Laws of 1923, hereby audits and allows as a charge against the city counsel … Gibbs v. Luther, 81 Misc. Rep. 611, 616 . “ Where charters are complete and contain all necessary powers to attain a given purpose, it is idle to invoke the aid of the act referred to.” City of *796 Geneva v.

McKee Storage Warehouse Corp. v. Moyer

37 Misc. 2d 623 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1962

In NYSLRB v. … within the board’s jurisdiction.

Ball v. Pratt

36 Barb. 402 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1862

And Bronson, J. in Browning v. … (Bronson, J. in Browning v.

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Slocum

183 Misc. 454 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1944

No proceeding before the Adjustment Board or otherwise under the Railway Labor Act has been had. Such proceeding *457 is not a prerequisite to an action in court. (Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 312 U. … sought to enjoin carrying the Board’s decision into effect.

Crosby & Co. v. Compagnie Nationale Air France

76 Misc. 2d 990 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1973

Congress gave the responsibility for achieving this result to a single agency, the Civil Aeronautics Board, rather than to the numerous courts under diverse laws. (Lichten v. Eastern Air Lines, supra, p. 941.) … A claim that a tariff is unreasonable must first be passed upon by the board. (United States v. Western Pacific B. B. Co., 352 U. S. 59 ; Blair v. Delta Air Lines, 344 F. Supp. 360, 366-367 .)