Case law

In re Hertle

54 Misc. 354 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1907

The hoard of estimate and apportionment and the board of aldermen shall annually appropriate a sum sufficient to pay the salaries of said commissioners, and in the discretion of said board and the board of aldermen a sum … Armstrong v. Murphy, 65 App. Div. 126 . It is merely a part or incident of an administrative system devised by the Legislature for the efficient government of the municipality.

Poughkeepsie & Salt Point Plank Road Co. v. Griffin

21 Barb. 454 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1856

The case of the Trustees of Farmington Academy v. Allen, ( 14 Mass. Rep. 172 ,) is to the same effect. The decision in The Troy and Boston R. R. Co. v. … Brown, J., dissented. Judgment accordingly. Brown, S. B. Strong and Rockwell, Justices.]

Ruth v. Incorporated Village of Colonie

198 Misc. 608 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1950

(Matter of McAneny v. Board of Estimate, 232 N. Y. 377 .) In the case of this defendant such powers are to be found in the Village Law. … Corp. v. Bond ( 274 N. Y. 82 ) held that such an ordinance constitutes an unauthorized prohibition of the use of private property in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions (N. Y. Const., art. I, § 6; U. S.

Lawson v. Cornelius

35 Misc. 2d 816 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1962

rules and regulations of said Board of Police may prescribe. … The board adopted a rule providing for notice of “ two days before the rial ”.

Lydecker v. Valentine

24 N.Y.S. 567 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 28, 1893

This action was for damages for breach of a contract for rooms and board with the plaintiff. … See Wetmore v. Jaffray, 9 Hun, 140 ; De Lavalette v. Wendt, 11 Hun, 432 . Judgment reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide the event. All concur.

Holmes v. Rankin

17 Barb. 454 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1854

The claim of the defendant in this case for boarding the testatrix and her daughter was in every sense uncertain and unliquidated. … The cases of Lush v. Druse, Van Rensselaer v. Jones, and Van Rensselaer v.

People ex rel. Beller v. Wright

5 Thomp. & Cook 518 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1874

Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 id. 667. … In People v.

Salem v. Finney

127 Misc. 387 · New York Supreme Court · May 1, 1926

(Lobdell v. Lobdell, 36 N. Y. 327 ; Parsell v. Stryker, 41 id. 480; Freeman v. Freeman, 43 id. 34; Winne v. Winne, 166 id. 263; Taylor v. Higgs, 202 id. 65; McKeon v. Van Slyck, 223 id. 392.) … (Lobdell v. Lobdell, supra; Freeman v. Freeman, supra; Winne v. Winne, supra; Taylor v. Higgs, supra; McKeon v. Van Slyck, supra; Matthews v. Matthews, 62 Hun, 110 .)

Cervini v. Shorten

12 Misc. 2d 721 · New York Supreme Court · May 4, 1956

The provisions of section 500 of article V of snch ordinance prescribe that the maximum percentage of coverage of plot by the building area of all buildings in an R-6 Residence District is 25% of such plot. … The appeal was heard by such board on January 10,1956 and the board rendered its decision sustaining the building inspector and denying the petitioner’s appeal on January 13,1956.

Pavilion Nursing Home v. Litto

47 Misc. 2d 161 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1965

(Goodwins, Inc. v. Hagedorn, 303 N. Y. 300 [1951]; Plastic Calendering Corp. v. Spilberg, 121 N. Y. S. 2d 297 [1953]; Trading Port v. Robilotto, 8 Misc 2d 343 [1957].) … (San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 ; Dooley v. Anton, 8 N Y 2d 91 [1960]; Incres S. S. Co. v. International Mar.

Vinal v. New York Central Railroad

48 Misc. 2d 362 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1965

A preference will not be granted unless an action is noticed properly to be placed on the calendar (CPLR 3403; Moran v. Portchester Iron Works, 11 A D 2d 783; Friedman v. Friedman, 5 A D 2d 864; Roman v. … Furthermore, in most counties of the State, including- Albany, a motion for a preference may be made only at Trial Term, not at Special Term (Brown v. Upfold, 204 Misc. 416 ; Wicks v.

Birnbaum v. Whalen

85 Misc. 2d 512 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 13, 1976

Respondents argue that their procedures, namely the "exit conference” coupled with review by the three-member rate review board, are sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. … (Vail v Quinlan, 406 F Supp 951 .)

Strowell v. Vrooman

2 Cai. Cas. 107 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1804

Brown v. Leeson, 2 H. Bl. 43. And Lord Ellenborough followed hia example, where the cause of action was a wager on an abstract point of practice. Henkin v. Gerss, 2 Camp. 408; 12 East, 247, S.

Jackson ex dem. Brewster v. Bull

10 Johns. 19 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1813

The case of The Attorney-General v. … (Pells v. Brown, Cro. Jac. 599. 1 Salk. 299. Powell, J.)

Saperston v. National Bond & Investment Co.

128 Misc. 25 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1926

In the case of Cunningham v. Brown ( 265 U. … S. 19 ), the court, quoting from Sexton v. Kessler (225 id. 90 ) and citing Markham v. Jaudon ( 41 N.

In re McLean

3 N.Y.S. 45 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1888

Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97 ; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U. S. 345, 355, 356 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 921. … Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, 188 .

Stalban v. Friedman

171 Misc. 106 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1939

S. 1 ); or the manufacture of tractors and automobiles (National Labor Relations Board v. Fruehauf Trailer Co., Id. 49 ); or clothing (National Labor Relations Board v. … National Labor Relations Board , Id. 142 ); or the publishing of newspapers (Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board , Id. 103 ); or even the canning of fruits (Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v.

Pinkus v. Village of Hempstead

182 Misc. 546 · New York Supreme Court · May 1, 1944

(Fisher v. City of Mechanicville, 225 N. Y. 210 .) On the latter date, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution by a vote of four to one retaining another person as Village Attorney in place and stead of petitioner. … In Matter of Mylod v. Graves ( 274 N.

Vulpis v. Department of Correction

154 Misc. 2d 625 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1992

On June 11, 1991, the Parole Board denied petitioner’s request for parole, and declared petitioner ineligible for parole for an additional 24 months. … In contrast, an inmate who had been denied parole would only be eligible one year before "his or her next scheduled appearance before the state parole board” (Correction Law § 851 [former (2)]; Matter of Confoy v New York

Van Dine v. Willett

38 Barb. 319 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1862

It is true, as held in Carter v. … The case referred to in Planck v. Schermerhorn ( 3 Barb. Ch. Rep. 644 ) was a case where the assignee had a right to name a successor, not appoint an attorney.