5 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1903–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Featherstone v. Francogreen2 sentences2019We lack any discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in reviewing the penalty imposed by OCFS, and annulment and remittal to the agency for reconsideration of the revocation would be appropriate only if the penalty violated the rigorous Pell standard ( see Matter of Featherstone v Franco , 95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]). 2018To the extent the court suggests, as petitioner maintains on this appeal, that termination of an employee with an unblemished history is per se shocking to the judicial conscience, the court misapplies the "rigorous Pell standard" ( Featherstone, 95 N.Y.2d at 554 , 720 N.Y.S.2d 93 , 742 N.E.2d 607 ). | 1 | 2 |
MATTER OF YARBOUGH v. Francogreen1 sentence2000Moreover, for a court to consider evidentiary submissions as to circumstances after the Authority made its determination would violate another fundamental tenet of CPLR article 78 review — namely, that “[¡Judicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the ‘facts and record adduced before the agency’ ” (Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [quoting Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 90 AD2d 756, 757 , affd for reasons stated below 58 NY2d 952 ]; see also, Matter of Levine v New York State Liq. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
neutral
2 sentences2019We find that the penalty imposed here does not meet the Pell standard and does not shock our sense of fairness ( see Matter of Unity Home Care Agency, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health , 171 AD3d 419 , 420 [1st Dept 2019]; Simpson v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 93 AD3d 588 [1st Dept 2012]). 2019We find that the penalty imposed here does not meet the Pell standard and does not shock our sense of fairness ( see Matter of Unity Home Care Agency, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health , 171 AD3d 419 , 420 [1st Dept 2019]; Simpson v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 93 AD3d 588 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sequist v. County of Putnam
neutral
1 sentence2010Accordingly, we apply the standard enunciated in Matter of Pell and its progeny (see Matter of Sequist v County of Putnam, 40 AD3d 1003 [2007] [Pell factors applied in annulling the termination of employment of school bus driver found guilty of single drug infraction]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Fanelli v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board
green
1 sentence2000Moreover, for a court to consider evidentiary submissions as to circumstances after the Authority made its determination would violate another fundamental tenet of CPLR article 78 review — namely, that “[¡Judicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the ‘facts and record adduced before the agency’ ” (Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [quoting Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 90 AD2d 756, 757 , affd for reasons stated below 58 NY2d 952 ]; see also, Matter of Levine v New York State Liq. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
MATTER OF FANELLI v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.
green
1 sentence2000Moreover, for a court to consider evidentiary submissions as to circumstances after the Authority made its determination would violate another fundamental tenet of CPLR article 78 review — namely, that “[¡Judicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the ‘facts and record adduced before the agency’ ” (Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [quoting Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 90 AD2d 756, 757 , affd for reasons stated below 58 NY2d 952 ]; see also, Matter of Levine v New York State Liq. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Matter of Accounting of Hughes
green
1 sentence1903The court said: “There is nothing in the averments of Mr. Townsend’s affidavit respecting the action of the executrix in subsequently placing these assets, or a portion of them, in the custody of Mr. Griswold, inconsistent with Mrs. Pell’s claim that at the time of the filing -of Mr. Townsend’s petition there were no unadministered assets, and that there are now no unadministered assets belonging to the testator’s estate within the jurisdiction of this court.” In Matter of Accounting of Hughes, 95 N. Y. 55 , the court, referring to personal property that had been illegally removed from the sta | 1 | 1903–1903 |