Case law

General Railway Signal Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

95 Misc. 2d 260 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1978

No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371 ; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 61 AD2d 25 ; Board of Educ. v State Div. of Human Rights … In State Div. of Human Rights v Board of Educ. ( 53 AD2d 1043, 1044 ) the court said: "However, warned by the holdings of Rinas, Hillside and Liverpool (supra) [ 42 AD2d 388 , 44 AD2d 539 , and 46 AD2d 1004 ], protracted

Roman Catholic German Church v. Wachter

42 Barb. 43 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1863

In Shutters v. … In Goddard v.

People ex rel. Haverly v. Hanes

44 Misc. 475 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1904

Gaige v. Reardon, 49 Hun, 425 ; People ex rel. Bailey v. Supervisors of Greene, 12 Barb. 217 ; People ex rel. Stevens v. Hayt, 66 N. Y. 606 ; People ex rel. Smith, v. Schiellein, 95 id. 133. In People ex rel. Gaige v. … Section 114 of the Election Law provides for a recount of votes in certain eases by mandamus and it also provides that “ Boards of inspectors of election districts, and boards of canvassers, shall continue in office for the

Kruglikov v. Kruglikov

29 Misc. 2d 17 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961

Paraphrasing the language of the Court of Appeals in Warner v. Press Pub. Co. ( 132 N. … Act, §§ 349-354; People v. Shapiro, 308 N. Y. 453 ).” (People v. Keating, 286 App. Div. 150, 152 .)

Breuel v. Patrick Rohan

181 Misc. 635 · New York Supreme Court · May 21, 1943

Subdivision 6 of section 666 of said Charter provides further that: “ The board shall have power: 6. … The plaintiff has failed to exhaust her remedy by appeal to the Board of Standards and Appeals from the order of the Borough Superintendent of Buildings (cf. Matter of Towers Management Corp. v. Thatcher, 271 N.

Back v. Kaufman

175 Misc. 169 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1940

While Goldfinger v. Feintuch ( 276 N. … The case of *171 Allentuck-Brown Dental Laboratories v. Kaufman (N. Y. L. J.

People ex rel. Williamson v. Scannell

34 Misc. 709 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1901

V. 20/200, L. … Brady v. Martin ( 145 N. Y. 253 ) that it conferred a discretionary power and that discretion was a judicial one to be exercised reasonably and fairly.

Hiltsley v. Donohue

193 Misc. 485 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1948

Y. 681 ), Kram v. Cohen (50 N. Y. S. 2d 322), Ramos-Lopez v. Heffernan (64 N. Y. S. 2d 603) and Matter of Torre v. Heffernan ( 188 Misc. 284 ). … In Kram v.

Griffin v. Reville

1 Misc. 2d 1045 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1956

Cobble Close Farm v. Board of Adjustment, 10 N. J. 442.) … (See City of Utica v. Ortner, 256 App. Div. 1039 , and Village of Old Westbury v. Hoblin, 141 N. Y. S. 2d 186.)

Lossee v. Williams

6 Lans. 228 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1872

This was decided in Brown v. Curtiss ( 2 Cow., 225 ). Some doubt was thrown over the case by the cases of Brewster v. Lilew (4 Seld., 207), and by Draper v. Snow ( 20 N. Y., 331 ). … But the doubt, if there was any, is removed by the case of Cardell v. McNeil ( 21 N. Y., 336 ), in which the doctrine of the case of Brown v. Curtiss was recognized and affirmed.

East Side Credit Union v. Leiman

129 Misc. 239 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1927

These considerations distinguish the .case clearly from Pratt v. Short ( 79 N. Y. 437 ), as explained in Washington Life Ins. Co. v. Clason ( 16 App. … Co. v. Clason, supra, 436; U. S. Title Guaranty Co. v. Brown, 166 App. Div. 688 ; affd., 217 N. Y. 628 .

People v. Roldan

82 Misc. 2d 450 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1975

(See People v Rivera, 14 NY2d 441 ; People v Singleteary, 35 NY2d 528 .) … (Preston v United States, 376 US 364 ; Chambers v Maroney, 399 US 42 ; Cooper v California, 386 US 58 ; see, also, People v Sullivan, 29 NY2d 69 ; People v Robinson, 36 AD2d 375 .)

Hartford Insurance Group v. Town of North Hempstead

127 Misc. 2d 72 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1984

(De Forte v Allstate Ins. Co., 66 AD2d 1028 ; Goldstein v Brogan Cadillac Oldsmobile Corp., 90 AD2d 512, 514 .) … Plaintiff has alerted the court to no provision authorizing the town board to delegate that power.

Weissbard v. Kaplan

25 Misc. 2d 560 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1960

(See, also, Matter of Andresen v. Rice, 277 N. Y. 271, 282 [1938].) *562 The Fmk ease was followed by Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners ( 274 N. … A rereading of the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion (Matter of Sloat v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.

Mcguire v. Ogdensburgh & L. C. R.

18 N.Y.S. 313 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1892

Payne v. Railroad Co., 83 N. Y. 574 . … Hodge v. Railroad Co., 27 Hun, 395 ; Hungerford v. Railroad Co., 46 Hun, 340 .

Ajello v. Murphy

26 Misc. 2d 1026 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1961

McKinney, was at all the times set forth in the petition chairman of the board of directors of the Organization. … V, *1034 VII.) These cards clearly indicate the following: “Membership card not valid unless signed by Treasurer.”

Wechsler v. Murray

145 Misc. 2d 620 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1989

As required under the General Regulations of the Banking Board (3 NYCRR part 86 et seq.) East New York approved an initial version of the plan of conversion on July 1, 1987, by a vote of its board of trustees. … A proxy statement need not contain "speculative financial predictions” (Rodman v Grant Found., 608 F2d 64, 72 [2d Cir 1979]), nor need it "characterize disclosed information” (Mendell v Greenberg, 612 F Supp 1543, 1550 [SD

Robinson v. McManus

4 Lans. 380 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1871

(Hodges v. The Tennessee, &c., Ins. Co., 4 Seld., 416, and cases there cited.) And since the Code, that this rule applies as well in actions at law as in equity, is distinctly held by the Court of Appeals in Despard v. … See Carr v. Carr, Ante, 314.

People v. Dor

132 Misc. 2d 568 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1986

(People v Towles, 110 AD2d 729 [2d Dept 1985]; People v Sirianni, 89 AD2d 775 [4th Dept 1982].) … The Board of Immigration Appeals may, in its discretion, consider that certificate as it would a certificate issued by the court.

Marvin v. Town

10 N.Y.S. 148 · New York Supreme Court · May 26, 1890

as the board may deem to be benefited thereby, or may at any time enjoy the use thereof, and in proportion to such benefit, as the same shall be determined by said board of trustees.” … In Pink v. Barberi, 17 Wkly.