In the Matter of Pantelidis v. New York City Bd. of Standards & Appeals, 889 N.E.2d 474 (N.Y. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
In the Matter of Pantelidis v. New York City Bd. of Standards & Appeals, 889 N.E.2d 474 (N.Y. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (56 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Cozzolino v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (nyappdiv, 2022-04-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Cozzolino v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
State Troopers v Vacco , 253 AD2d 920, 921 [3d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]; see Matter of Pantelidis v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals , 43 AD3d 314, 315 [1st Dept 2007], affd 10 NY3d 846 [2008]; cf. Matter of Zelig , 189 AD3d at 659 [remanding "'for the submission of a complete record, further fact finding, and a new determination'"]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Freeland
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant's alleged inability to pay for counsel's services "did not entitle counsel to withdraw as defendant's attorney" ( Harris , 151 AD3d at 1721 ; see People v Woodring , 48 AD3d 1273, 1274 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 846 [2008]), and he provided no other basis for withdrawal.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Nash
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
“Intent may be inferred from conduct as well as the surrounding circumstances” (People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 682 [1992] [citations omitted]; see People v Zindle, 48 AD3d 971, 973 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 846 [2008]; People v Terk, 24 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2005]) and, contrary to defendant’s contention, need not exist for any length of time prior to the moment of the prohibited act (see CJI2d[NY] Culpable Mental States—Intent).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of GEORGE PANTELIDIS, Respondent,
v.
NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS et al., Appellants, and JOSEPH E. SHEEHAN et al., Intervenors-Appellants.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 1, 2008.
889 N.E.2d 474
Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 50 opinions  |  Published

[*847] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for appellants.

Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh, LLP, New York City (Bruce H. Weiner of counsel), for intervenors-appellants.

Hagan, Coury & Associates, Brooklyn (Paul Golden of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

An issue of fact existed whether petitioner relied in good faith upon the permit issued by the Department of Buildings. The courts below properly concluded that a hearing was necessary on that issue and that, in this setting, that hearing could be conducted by Supreme Court and not the agency. Moreover, because the record was sufficiently developed, Supreme Court, after conducting the good faith hearing, properly concluded as a matter of law that petitioner had satisfied the criteria set forth in the Zoning Resolution and that the Board of Standards and Appeals should issue the requested variance.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.