Case law

Weible v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

25 Pa. D. & C.2d 74 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Apr 17, 1961

These factors are: (1) Unnecessary hardship (more properly called “legal hardship”), and (2) that the proposed use will not be contrary to the public interest: Sylvester v. … Since the record fails to disclose that the decision of the zoning board of adjustment was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or a clear violation of positive law we are without power to interfere: Ruch v.

Newburgh Nursery, Inc. v. Board of Education

41 Misc. 2d 997 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1964

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff duly filed with the treasurer and clerk of the Board of Education a notice of lien in accordance with the Lien Law. … The Board of Education admits that a notice of lien was filed but reserves every objection as to form, substance, manner of filing and service.

Mozingo v. Board of Liquor Control

69 Ohio Law. Abs. 597 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Apr 16, 1954

The Court finds the decision of the Board of Liquor Control to be supported by probative, reliable and substantial *600 evidence and the Court further finds the decision of the Board to be in accordance with law. … The order of the Board is affirmed.

Builders Supply Co. of Hopewell, Inc. v. Brown

24 Va. Cir. 369 · Richmond County Circuit Court · Aug 7, 1991

Toner & Son v. Staunton Production Credit Ass’n, 237 Va. 155 (1989); Brown v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 704 F.2d 1296 (4th Cir. 1983). … While plaintiff’s action here is not one sounding in fraud, a personal action, as was found in Toner and in Piggott v.

Community School Board Nine v. Cortines

160 Misc. 2d 995 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1994

(See, Matter of Zuckerman v Board of Educ., 44 NY2d 336 [1978]; Matter of Kovarsky v Housing & Dev. Admin., 31 NY2d 184 [1972]; Community School Bd. 26 v Macchiarola, 99 Misc 2d 219 [1979].) … Six v Scribner, 78 Misc 2d 195 [1974]; Subcontractors Trade Assn. v Koch, 62 NY2d 422 [1984]; Under 21 Catholic Home Bur. for Dependent Children v City of New York, 65 NY2d 344 [1985].)

Halfmoon Bridge Co. v. Canal Board

91 Misc. 600 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1915

The canal board has attempted to appropriate a part of plaintiff’s lands at each end of the bridge, and this, with its constructions in the river, involves the destruction of the bridge. … Halfmoon Bridge Co. v. Acme Construction Co., 157 App. Div. 183 ; Halfmoon Bridge Co. v. Acme Construction Co., 163 id. 76; reversed on other grounds, 213 N. Y. 160 .

W. E. Brown, Inc. v. Stone

28 Va. Cir. 325 · Charlottesville County Circuit Court · Jul 9, 1992

All parties agree that Brown knew about the basis of his claim prior to the order of substitution in February, 1989. In MacLellan v. … In Oleyar v.

Goldstein v. Board of Zoning Appeals

113 Misc. 2d 756 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1982

The discretion of a board of zoning appeals in determining whether a special exception shall be granted is confined to the standards enacted to guide and limit the board’s power (Matter of Hartnett v Segur, 21 AD2d 132 ). … When the standards have been met the board is without authority to deny the exception (Matter of Holmes & Murphy v Bush, 6 AD2d 200 ; Matter of Harrison-Warren Realty Co. v Spencer, 124 Misc 783 ; Larkfield Equities v Larkin

People v. Brown

2025 NY Slip Op 50381(U) · The Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York · Mar 26, 2025

People v Brown ( 2025 NY Slip Op 50381(U) ) [*1] People v Brown 2025 NY Slip Op 50381(U) Decided on March 26, 2025 Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, New York County Coleman, J. … Brown moves to suppress a noticed statement as involuntary and as the fruit of an unlawful arrest ( People v Huntley , 15 NY2d 72 [1965]; Dunaway v New York , 442 US 200 [1979]); for a voluntariness hearing regarding any

Van Nostrand v. Board of Supervisors

67 Misc. 2d 1096 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1971

(Iannucci v. Board of Supervisors of County of Washington, 20 N Y 2d 244, 253.) … (Iannucci v. Board of Supervisors of County of Washington, 20 N Y 2d 244, 252, supra).

Roach v. Roach

67 Ohio Law. Abs. 162 · Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · Dec 1, 1953

In Bush v. … Armstrong v. Armstrong, 117 Oh St 558, McPherson v. McPherson, supra, 157 A. L. R., 175, Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S., 1 .

St. Pierre v. Board of Education

66 Misc. 2d 634 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1971

(Matter of Weymer v. Board of Educ. of Connetquot School Dist. No. 7, Sup. Ct., Suffolk County, decision of Justice Frank P. DeLuca, dated March 30, 1971, Index No. 71-307; Matter of Wilson v. … (Matter of Lawson v. Board of Educ. of Vestal Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 62 Misc 2d 281 , affd. 35 A D 2d 878 ; also, see, Matter of Zeluck v.

Gander v. Board of Fire Commissioners

117 Misc. 2d 830 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1983

Proof was submitted from the Board of Elections of Nassau County indicating that the records of that board confirm the position of the petitioner that 92 voters were not registered. … (Filiberto v Roosevelt Fire Dist., 75 AD2d 572 ; Leggio v Brentwood Fire Dist., Supreme Ct, Suffolk County, Stark, J.; DiNicola v West Islip Fire Dist., Supreme Ct, Suffolk County, Stark, J.)

First American Title Insurance v. Brown

7 Va. Cir. 549 · Alexandria County Circuit Court · Dec 4, 1979

McKay v. Citizens Rapid Transit Company, 190 Va. 851 , 59 S.E.2d 121 , 20 A.L.R.2d 918 (1950). … The Court is persuaded that under the principles set forth in Coy v. Raabe, 418 P.2d 728 (1966), and Chicago Title Insurance Company v.

Peekskill Packing Co. v. Board of Health

172 Misc. 176 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1939

Third, the board of health argues that the zoning board of appeals had no authority under the zoning ordinance to grant any variance and that the conditional variance granted is void. The case of Matter of Beckmann v. … without the consent of the board of health; Such conclusion is supported to a considerable extent by the case of Tugman v.

Hoxsie v. Zoning Board of Appeals

129 Misc. 2d 493 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1985

Petitioner has brought the within CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a May 29, 1985 determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs (hereafter Board) to grant a variance to intervenor-respondent … Since July 13 was a Saturday, the limitations period was extended to the next business day, Monday, July 15, 1985 (see, e.g., Matter of Scuderi v Board of Educ., 49 AD2d 942 , appeal dismissed 38 NY2d 848 ). II.

Friends of Pine Bush v. Planning Board

96 Misc. 2d 320 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1978

Although the need in zoning cases for a broader rule of standing and the actual broadening of said rule has been recognized (Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, 36 NY2d 1 ), the court must still be satisfied that the … (Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn. v Galvin, 43 AD2d 739, 740 .) That interest need not be solely economic, but it may represent aesthetic and environmental values as well.

Faulisi v. Board of Police Commissioners

7 Misc. 2d 704 · New York Supreme Court · May 10, 1957

(Matter of Katz v. Goldwater, supra; People ex rel. Hannan v. Board of Health, 153 N. Y. 513 ; Matter of Romanchuk v. Murphy, 200 Misc. 987 ; Matter of Perotta v. Gregory, 4 Misc 2d 769 .) … The Board of Police Commissioners, as the appointing body, had not only the right but the duty to terminate petitioner’s employment upon learning that he was ineligible. (Palmer v. Board of Educ., 276 N. Y. 222 .)

Josephs v. Town Board of Clarkstown

24 Misc. 2d 366 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1960

(Matter of Rothstein v. County Operating Corp., 6 N Y 2d 728, *368 729.) … (See Levitt v. Inc. Vil. of Sands Point, 6 N Y 2d 269.)

Spencer v. Board of Zoning Appeals

85 Ohio Law. Abs. 361 · Stark County Court of Common Pleas · Oct 30, 1959

Ordinarily, the matter as to whether a ‘variance’ should 3r should not be authorized in a specific case by a Township Board of Zoning Appeals is a matter within the sound discretion of such Board. … In my opinion, the plaintiff’s application for a zoning certificate should have been approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in refusing to approve it to that extent is unreasonable