Case law

Triolo v. Johnson

65 Misc. 2d 424 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1970

J., July 3, 1967, p. 14, col. 6) to the effect that the action of the local board in limiting hours of sale is not reviewable since review is not so provided. (See, also, Matter of Affiliated Distillers Brands Corp. v. … The order of the local board herein had a reasonable basis, i.e., to lessen the risk of intoxicants being placed into the hands of certain disturbers during the increased hours of closing (cf. Grossman v.

Jordan v. Loos

204 Misc. 814 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1953

(Matter of Blandford v. McClellan, 173 Misc. 15 .) Thus, in Matter of Natelson v. Portfolio ( 291 N. … The associations as well as the respondents cite Runyon v. Board of Prison Terms & Paroles ( 26 Cal. App. 2d 183, 184-185 ), representing it to be almost identical with the instant proceeding.

People ex rel. Ryan v. Dalton

28 N.Y.S. 491 · The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · Mar 15, 1894

In People v. Board of Excise (City Ct. Brook.) 16 N. Y. Supp. 798 , affirmed by court of appeals, 31 N. … If the board, had not accorded a full hearing, one might have been directed.

Kent v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

200 Misc. 101 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1950

S. 377 ; Venner v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 271 U. S. 127 ; see, also, Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239 ). … That provision establishes the exclusive method for the review of the validity of board orders (Sykes v. Jenny Wren Co., 78 F. 2d 729 ; see, also, Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41 ).

In re the Board of Water Supply

81 Misc. 19 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1913

In Central Coal & Coke Co. v. … In Dickinson v. Hart, 142 N.

Collins v. Heffernan

187 Misc. 165 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 13, 1946

This is an application to set aside the action of the Board of Elections declaring invalid the designating petition of Charles A. … Insofar as the petitioner seeks to set aside the action of the Board of Elections it is based on the fact that the Board of Elections did not have the right to seek evidence of facts not appearing on the face of the petition

Metropolitan Savings Bank v. Residual Realties, Ltd.

102 Misc. 2d 1105 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1980

North v Grassi ( 51 AD2d 502 ). … Y. v Bryant Westchester Realty Corp., 90 Misc 2d 816 ; Housing & Dev. Admin, of City of N. Y. v Johan Realty, 93 Misc 2d 698 ; Lange v Joy, NYLJ, Dec. 9, 1977, p 4, col 2).

Eberle v. LaGuardia

175 Misc. 272 · New York Supreme Court · May 14, 1940

The board has no discretion in such cases. (Rees v. Teachers’ Retirement Board, 247 N. Y. 372 ; Matter of Creveling v. Teachers’ Retirement Board, 255 id. 364.) … Brady v. Martin ( 145 N. Y. 253 ); People ex rel. Hardy v. Green (37 App. Div. 589 ); Matter of McMeekan v. Dept. of Health ( 157 Misc. 620 ).

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Rye

16 Misc. 2d 284 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1959

(See Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 N Y 2d 445; People ex rel. Fordham Manor Ref. Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280 ; Matter of Gilbert v. Stevens, 284 App. Div. 1016 ; Matter of Panzer v. … McConnell, 6 AD 2d 700 ; Matter of Holmes & Murphy, Inc., v. Bush, 6 A D 2d 200; Matter of Wehr v. Crowley, 6 A D 2d 214.) This, the board has not done.

Davidowitz ex rel. Intelogic Trace, Inc. v. Edelman

153 Misc. 2d 853 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1992

of judgment” (Auerbach v Bennett, supra, at 631; see also, Parkoff v General Tel. & Elecs. … Parkoff v General Tel. & Elecs.

Robbins v. Schechter

7 Misc. 2d 436 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1957

In Matter of Abramson v. … V, § 6).”

Dickey v. United Insurance

11 Johns. 358 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1814

The underwriters were expressly informed by the assured, before they signed the policy, that the schooner would have on board some negroes bound for the Havanna. … Judgment for the plaintiff, (a) See Hormyer v. Lushington, (15 East, 46,) and Bell v. Bell, (2 Camp. N. P. Reg. 475.)

Kaiser v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

170 Misc. 2d 321 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1996

Woodberry, 8 NY2d 165 [1960]; Guarino v Woodworth, 204 AD2d 391 [1994]; McGraw v Ranieri, 202 AD2d 725 [1994]; Canfield v Giles, 182 AD2d 1075 [1992]). … Corp. v City of New York, 454 US 1164 [1982]).

Thurman v. Wells

18 Barb. 500 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1854

In Prosser v. … Brown, S. B. Strong and Rockwell, Justices.)

Conlin v. Aiello

92 Misc. 2d 235 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1977

to comply with the constitutional mandate of section 6 of article V (Beck v Board of Educ. of City of N. … , an arrangement violative of the State Constitution (see Beck v Board of Educ. of City of N.

Collier Service Corp. v. Boland

167 Misc. 709 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1938

(Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 142 .) … In Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (91 F. [2d] 134; certiorari denied, 302 U. S. 731 ; 58 S.

Kominski v. Western Express Co.

37 Misc. 2d 992 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1962

(Guss v. … (General Advertisers Serv. v. Doe, 16 A D 2d 552; Dempsey v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 11 A D 2d 419; Stork Restaurant v. Fernandez, 8 A D 2d 38; Rodgers v. O’Connell, 34 Misc 2d 62 ; Honegger v.

S. B. Garage Corp. v. Murdock

185 Misc. 55 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1945

Sondern v. Walsh No. 1 ( 108 Misc. 193 ) and People ex rel. Sondern v. … (People v. Santa Clara Lumber Co., 213 N. Y. 61 ; Marcus v. Village of Mamaroneck, 283 N. Y. 325 , supra; Village of North Pelham v. Ohliger, 216 App. Div. 728 , affd. 245 N. Y. 593 ; Lipsitz v.

Johnson v. Parsons

207 Misc. 107 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1954

(See Matter of Bethlehem Union Free School Dist. v. Wilson, 303 N. Y. 107 , 114 ; Bullock v. Cooley, 225 N. Y. 566 , supra ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1, Town of Somers, v. Stoddard, 49 N. Y. … Thus the statute complained of is constitutional (Matter of Board of Educ. of Bethlehem Union Free School Dist. v. Wilson, 303 N. Y. 107,114-115 , supra ; Gardner v. Ginther, 232 App. Div. 296 , affd. 257 N.

Oakley v. Longview Owners, Inc.

165 Misc. 2d 192 · New York Supreme Court · May 10, 1995

A finding of bad faith on the part of the board would be significant because it would open the board to liability despite the business judgment rule as applied in Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave. Apt. … However, the rule is not absolute and a court may find it has a basis for review where the alleged acts are beyond the authority of the board, done in bad faith, or are discriminatory (see, Levandusky v One Fifth Ave.