Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Prismatic Dev. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth.
The Chief Engineer also did not ignore petitioner's bid and pricing list, contract documents that are not reviewable in this proceeding since they were not submitted in the dispute, and, in any event, "are not themselves affirmative indications of the subsurface conditions" ( Renda Marine , 66 Fed Cl at 654; see Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd. , 90 AD2d 756 , 757 [1st Dept 1982], affd 58 NY2d 952 [1983]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Prismatic Dev. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth.
The Chief Engineer also did not ignore petitioner's bid and pricing list, contract documents that are not reviewable in this proceeding since they were not submitted in the dispute, and, in any event, "are not themselves affirmative indications of the subsurface conditions" ( Renda Marine , 66 Fed Cl at 654; see Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd. , 90 AD2d 756 , 757 [1st Dept 1982], affd 58 NY2d 952 [1983]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ABN AMRO Bank N.V. v. Dinallo
If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis.” ’ ” (Matter of Scherbyn, 77 NY2d at 758 [citations omitted].) Moreover, a “fundamental tenet of CPLR article 78 review” is that “[jjudicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the ‘facts and record adduced before the agency.’ ” (Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000], citing Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000]; see also Matter of Fanelli v New York…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
985 Fifth Avenue Inc. v. State Division of Housing & Community Renewal
However, the burden is upon the owner to justify the increase sought by presenting documentary support therefor, and it must submit all relevant in voices, bills, cancelled checks and/or other material to the Administrator and not initially at the appellate stage unless it is established that this evidence could not reasonably have been offered at the administrative proceeding (9 NYCRR 2529.6; see also, Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 58 NY2d 952 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ottavio Fanelli, Appellant,
v.
New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, Respondent, and William R. Biery, Intervenor-Respondent
v.
New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board, Respondent, and William R. Biery, Intervenor-Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 23, 1983.
447 N.E.2d 82
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, George A. Burrell for appellant., Ellis S. Franke and Mary Ellen Cronly for respondent., Michael R. Finder for intervenor-respondent.
Cited by 78 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (90 AD2d 756).
Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons.