Case law

People v. Keller

168 Misc. 2d 693 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1996

; People v Geraci, 85 NY2d 359 ; People v Ortiz, 209 AD2d 332 , appeal denied 86 NY2d 739 ; People v Ely, 164 AD2d 442 , appeal denied 77 NY2d 905 [former testimony]; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 [present sense exception]) … Both the Model Code of Evidence, which has been deferred to by the Court of Appeals (People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729 , supra; People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493 ) pursuant to rule 524, *698 and the Federal Rules of Evidence, which

People's Bank v. St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church

46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 498 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1886

In Packard v. … And this rule was followed in Adriance v. Roome ( 52 Barb., 399 ) and Dabney v.

Wiltwyck School for Boys, Inc. v. Perry

24 Misc. 2d 281 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1960

Subsequently the determination of the Board of Appeals was reviewed by this court and by decision dated January 7, 1960, the Board of Appeals was upheld. … (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 [1926]; Wiggins v. Town of Somers, 4 N Y 2d 215 [1958]; Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241 N. Y. 288 [1925]; Bond v. Cooke, 237 App. Div. 229 [3d Dept., 1932].

Miller v. Tofany

88 Misc. 2d 247 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1975

By letter dated October 1, 1975 the chairman of the Administrative Appeals Board denied the request for a stay. … (Rieder v State Univ. of N. Y., 47 AD2d 865 .)

In re Rooney

26 Misc. 73 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1899

Matter of Brown v. Duane, 60 Hun, 101 .

Levitt & Sons, Inc. v. Young

189 Misc. 922 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1947

As was said in Zahn v. Board of Public Works ( 274 U. S. 325, 328 ): “ The most that can be said is that whether that determination was an unreasonable, arbitrary or unequal exercise of power is fairly debatable. … Euclid v. Ambler Co., supra, 388, 385 ; Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292, 294 ; Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U. S. 394, 408-412, 413-414 ; Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U. S. 526, 530-531 ; Rast v.

Halasz v. City of New York

17 Misc. 2d 937 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1959

Brown, J. Following service of summons upon the defendants, plaintiff moves for an order pursuant to rule 122 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to examine defendants for the purpose of framing a complaint. … (Kenerson v. Davis, 278 App. Div. 482, 485 ; Crave v. Bart J. Ruddy, Inc., 132 N. Y. S. 2d 908 and cases *939 therein cited; East v. Endicott Forging & Mfg. Co., 280 App. Div. 651 .)

Cronkright v. City of Brooklyn

25 Misc. 386 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1898

There is no evidence that he ever asked for any increase of salary, or that any agreement was ever made to pay him for extra work, or that the board of supervisors ever fixed his salary as clerk; but the claim is asserted … Cahill v. Mayor of New York, 2 Week. Dig. 197. The chief clerk had no express or implied power to appoint deputies. The only power of appointment to such office was vested by statute in the judges of the court.

Brewster v. Bates

30 N.Y.S. 780 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1894

In the case of Brown v. … v.

Muehlstein v. Leonard Mortgage Co.

196 Misc. 595 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1949

It follows that the Area Rent Director, a duly authorized representative of the Housing Expediter, could likewise issue the rent increase order without consulting the local advisory board (see Bowles v. … In Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz ( 275 App. Div. 387 , 389), the Appellate Division in this Department recognized that “ no hearing is required.”

Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse

156 Misc. 2d 865 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1992

supra [on examination of corporate accounts]; Ford’s Inc. v Russell Brown & Co., supra [at audit]; Isaacson, Stolper & Co. v Artisan’s Sav. … Rather, courts have consistently held such participation was of no significance (see, Brower v Davidson, Deckert, Schutter & Glassman, supra; Snipes v Jackson, supra; Leonhart v Atkinson, supra; Ford’s, Inc. v Russell Brown

In re City of New York

99 Misc. 38 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1917

The board of estimate and apportionment having fixed, by its resolutions, the area of assessment, in pursuance of its delegated legislative power, the court may not question the equity or propriety thereof. Ellwood v. … Hagerty v. McClellan, 107 App. Div. 272 ; Matter of City of New York (225th Street), 150 id. 223; Matter of 33d St. & Case St., N. Y. L. J., Dec. 7, 1915.

Murer v. Butterfield

122 Misc. 2d 969 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 17, 1984

For example, in Cahn v Town of Huntington ( 29 NY2d 451 ), where there had been litigation between the Planning *973 Board of the Town of Huntington and the Town Board, the Court of Appeals ruled that even absent statutory … Co. v Delany, supra.)

Osetek v. Barone

60 Misc. 2d 980 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1968

The court continued the proceeding as an action for a declaratory judgment and treated the pleadings as the complaint and answer, under the authority of Matter of Nowak v. Wereszynski (21 A D 2d 427). … The Planning Board and the Town Board were justified in not taking chances with the growth and orderly development of the town.

Woodward v. Harris

2 Barb. 439 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 7, 1848

(Ben edict v. Lynch, 1 John. Ch. Rep. 373. 2 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 723.) … Brown v. Newall, 2 Mylne & Craig, 570.) The writ will not be awarded in doubtful cases, or new ones not coming within well established principles. (Bonaparte v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co., 1 Bald. Cir. C. Rep. 218.)

W. S. 23 Realty Corp. v. City of New York

106 Misc. 2d 271 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1980

applications on August 16,1979 and its denial was sustained by this court in a CPLR article 78 proceeding entitled Stratford Place Corp. v Board of Estimate (Index No. 18294/ 79). … The constitutionality of the City’s in rem tax foreclosure law has been long established (Nelson v New York City, 352 US 103 ; Sonmax, Inc. v City of New York, 43 NY2d 253 ).

Foster v. Monroe

40 Misc. 449 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1903

The commissioner of water supply is authorized, in his discretion, to cause water meters, the pattern and price of which shall be approved by-the board of aldermen, to be placed in all stores, workshops, hotels, manufactories … Hill v. Thompson, 18 J. & S. 165, relied upon for the defendants, is not to the contrary, since the ratio decidendi of that case did not involve the meaning of the language here interpreted.

Elwood v. Jackson

162 Misc. 2d 297 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1994

from refuting the findings of the Board of Elections. … (Matter of Krueger v Richards, 59 NY2d 680 ; Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620 ; Matter of Jackson v Stevens, 185 AD2d 960 .)

South Baptist Society v. Clapp

18 Barb. 35 · New York Supreme Court · May 2, 1853

(Torrey v. Bank of Orleans, 9 Paige, 650 . Hawley v. Cramer, 4 Cowen, 736. Van Epps v. Van Epps, 9 Paige, 237 . Parkist v. Alexander, 1 John. Ch. 394. Conger v. Ring, 11 Barb. 356 .) … The second objection is, that there was no order or resolution of the board of trustees authorizing the mortgage. All the trustees, except one who had resigned, executed the mortgage.

State ex rel. Hammer v. Keane

143 Misc. 2d 132 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1989

Brown v New York State Div. of Parole, 70 NY2d 391, 398 ). Aside from the fact that petitioner’s sentence is unexpired, each of the cases cited in support are distinguishable in that they involve parole revocation. … Cunningham v Metz, 61 AD2d 590, 592-593 ).