Matter of Niagara Cnty. v. Power Auth. of State of New York, 954 N.E.2d 1158 (NY 2011). · Go Syfert
Matter of Niagara Cnty. v. Power Auth. of State of New York, 954 N.E.2d 1158 (NY 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Crehan v. Richardson (nyappdiv, 2025-03-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Crehan v. Richardson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are accorded every favorable inference, but "bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly contradicted by the record are not entitled to any such consideration" ( Rhodes v Honigman , 131 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2d Dept 2015]; see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of State of N.Y. , 82 AD3d 1597, 1599 [4th Dept 2011], lv dismissed in part & denied in part 17 NY3d 838 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" People ex rel. Suarez v. Superintendent, Livingston Corr. Facility
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Furthermore, the phrase " 'notwithstanding any provision of [*3]law to the contrary' [is] the verbal formulation frequently employed for legislative directives intended to preempt any other potentially conflicting statute, wherever found in the State's laws" ( People v Mitchell , 15 NY3d 93, 97 [2010]; see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of State of N.Y. , 82 AD3d 1597, 1601 [4th Dept 2011], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 17 NY3d 838 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" Retired Public Employees Ass'n v. Cuomo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Civil Service Law § 167 (8) begins with the phrase “[notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law,” which is a “verbal formulation frequently employed for legislative directives intended to preempt any other potentially conflicting statute, wherever found in the [s]tate’s laws” (People v Mitchell, 15 NY3d 93, 97 [2010]; see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 82 AD3d 1597, 1601 [2011], lv dismissed and denied 17 NY3d 838 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" Retired Public Employees Ass'n v. Cuomo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Civil Service Law § 167 (8) begins with the phrase “[notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law,” which is a “verbal formulation frequently employed for legislative directives intended to preempt any other potentially conflicting statute, wherever found in the [s]tate’s laws” (People v Mitchell, 15 NY3d 93, 97 [2010]; see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 82 AD3d 1597, 1601 [2011], lv dismissed and denied 17 NY3d 838 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" MatterofRetiredPublicEmployeesAssociation,Inc.vCuomo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Civil Service Law § 167 (8) begins with the phrase "[n]otwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law," which is a "verbal formulation frequently employed for legislative directives intended to preempt any other potentially conflicting statute, wherever found in the [s]tate's laws" (People v Mitchell, 15 NY3d 93, 97 [2010]; see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 82 AD3d 1597, 1601 [2011], lv dismissed and denied 17 NY3d 838 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" ADM, LLC v. VILLAGE OF MACEDON
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, petitioners failed to establish the “existence of an injury in fact — an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated” and therefore lack standing to commence either the action for a declaration or the two CPLR article 78 proceedings (Society of Plastics Indus, v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772 [1991]; see Matter of Niagara County v Power Auth. of *1719 State of N.Y., 82 AD3d 1597, 1598-1599 [2011], lv dismissed and denied 17 NY3d 838 [2011]; Matter of Brown v County of Erie, 60 AD3d 1442, 1443-1444 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Niagara County, on Behalf of Its Residents, Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Power Authority of State of New York Et Al., Respondents
Motion No: 2011-519.
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 13, 2011.
954 N.E.2d 1158
Published

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order which denied petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a complaint and discovery demands, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.