green
Positive treatment
6.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Paul Winery Inc. v. State
(2×)
As indicated previously, respondents have not directly refuted or even addressed petitioner’s legal claims, including petitioner’s challenge to charge two. 32 “[I]t is axiomatic that due process precludes the deprivation of . . . substantial rights in an administrative proceeding because of uncharged misconduct. . . and it necessarily follows, therefore, that a respondent in such a proceeding is entitled to fair notice of the charges against him or her so that he or she may prepare and present an adequate defense and thereby have an opportunity to be heard.” (Whitbread-Nolan, Inc. v Sh…
discussed
Cited "see"
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a United States Corporation, Plaintiff v. Bank of Boulder, a Colorado Corporation
(2×)
Id. at 423 ; accord American Bell Int’l v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., N.Y.L.J., Mar. 29, 1979, at 6, col. 7 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1979), aff'd mem., 70 A.D.2d 830 , 418 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y.App.Div.1979).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Vitro v. Hanlon
(State Administrative Procedure Act, § 100; see, also, Matter of With v Sarafan, 70 AD2d 830, 831 , dissent by Murphy, P. J.)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gladys K. Spiegel
v.
Herman R. Spiegel
v.
Herman R. Spiegel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 26, 1979.
Published
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 28, 1978, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Appeal from order of said court entered on October 13, 1978 dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, as nonappealable. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Markewich, Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.