115 New York opinions name it 11 courts 1880–2024 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Halperin v. City of New Rochellegreen2 sentences2013In this proceeding in which the petitioners challenge an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, we must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). 2013In this proceeding in which the petitioners challenge an agency determination that was not made after a quasi-judicial hearing, we must consider whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]). | 3 | 3 |
Peckham v. Calogerogreen2 sentences2016The petitioners’ remaining contentions are improperly raised in this proceeding (see Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d at 430 ; Matter of Calenzo v Shah, 112 AD3d at 712 ) and, in any event, without merit. 2013In such a proceeding, courts “examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis” and will overturn that action only “where it is ‘taken without sound basis in reason’ or ‘regard to the facts’ ” (Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010], quoting Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. | 2 | 3 |
Batavia Lodge No. 196 v. New York State Division of Human Rightsgreen2 sentences2016Simply put, the statute “does not permit businesses to offer a ‘limited menu’ of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d at 62; see Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., — P3d at —, 2015 WL 4760453, *7 , 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *20-23; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 145 [1974] [finding “blatant and intolerable” discrimination where black complainants were invited on the premises for a fashion show but, unlike the white att 2016Simply put, the statute “does not permit businesses to offer a ‘limited menu’ of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d at 62; see Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., — P3d at —, 2015 WL 4760453, *7 , 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *20-23; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 145 [1974] [finding “blatant and intolerable” discrimination where black complainants were invited on the premises for a fashion show but, unlike the white att | 2 | 2 |
Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Incgreen2 sentences2016Simply put, the statute “does not permit businesses to offer a ‘limited menu’ of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d at 62; see Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., — P3d at —, 2015 WL 4760453, *7 , 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *20-23; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 145 [1974] [finding “blatant and intolerable” discrimination where black complainants were invited on the premises for a fashion show but, unlike the white att 2016Simply put, the statute “does not permit businesses to offer a ‘limited menu’ of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d at 62; see Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., — P3d at —, 2015 WL 4760453, *7 , 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *20-23; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 145 [1974] [finding “blatant and intolerable” discrimination where black complainants were invited on the premises for a fashion show but, unlike the white att | 2 | 2 |
United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2016Simply put, the statute “does not permit businesses to offer a ‘limited menu’ of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d at 62; see Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., — P3d at —, 2015 WL 4760453, *7 , 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *20-23; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 145 [1974] [finding “blatant and intolerable” discrimination where black complainants were invited on the premises for a fashion show but, unlike the white att 2016Simply put, the statute “does not permit businesses to offer a ‘limited menu’ of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected categories” (Elane Photography, LLC v Willock, 309 P3d at 62; see Craig v Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., — P3d at —, 2015 WL 4760453, *7 , 2015 Colo App LEXIS 1217, *20-23; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 145 [1974] [finding “blatant and intolerable” discrimination where black complainants were invited on the premises for a fashion show but, unlike the white att | 2 | 2 |
Wooley v. New York State Department of Correctional Servicesgreen2 sentences2013In such a proceeding, courts “examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis” and will overturn that action only “where it is ‘taken without sound basis in reason’ or ‘regard to the facts’ ” (Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010], quoting Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. 2013In such a proceeding, courts “examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis” and will overturn that action only “where it is ‘taken without sound basis in reason’ or ‘regard to the facts’ ” (Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept, of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 280 [2010], quoting Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Noonan v. Noonangreen2 sentences2012Noonan v Noonan, 145 Misc 2d 638, 641 [1989]). 2012Noonan v Noonan, 145 Misc 2d 638, 641 [1989]). | 2 | 2 |
Curcio v. Wolfgreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictiunally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of NY., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). 2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictionally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). | 2 | 2 |
Flores v. Kapsisgreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictiunally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of NY., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). 2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictionally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). | 2 | 2 |
Jenkins v. Board of Electionsgreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictiunally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of NY., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). 2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictionally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wynngreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictiunally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of NY., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). 2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictionally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). | 2 | 2 |
Aldrich v. Pattisongreen2 sentences2019Pine Barrens Socy. v Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven , 204 AD2d 548, 550 ; Aldrich v Pattison , 107 AD2d 258, 268 ). 2007(Jackson at 417, quoting Aldrich v Pattison, 107 AD2d 258, 265 [2d Dept 1985]; see also Gernatt.) A. Alternatives The petitioners claim that the respondents failed to properly evaluate and analyze sufficient and acceptable alternatives to the project. | 1 | 3 |
Levine v. Town of Clarkstowngreen2 sentences2024Since the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals had the authority to review determinations of administrative officials with respect to local zoning laws ( see Town Law § 267-a[4]; Code of Town of New Windsor § 300-84[A]), the petitioners were required to challenge the determination of the Planning Board Engineer before the Zoning Board of Appeals ( see Matter of Swantz v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Cobleskill , 34 AD3d at 1160-1161 ; Matter of Levine v Town of Clarkstown , 307 AD2d 997, 999 ; Sabatini v Incorporated Vil. of Kensington , 284 AD2d 320, 321 ; see generally Matter of Gershowitz v Planning Bd 2008The petitioners were required to challenge the issuance of the building permit before the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals prior to commencing this proceeding (see Matter of Levine v Town of Clarkstown, 307 AD2d 997, 999 [2003]; Sabatini v Incorporated Vil. of Kensington, 284 AD2d 320 [2001]). | 1 | 2 |
Watergate II Apartments v. Buffalo Sewer Authoritygreen2 sentences2003The petitioners were required to challenge the issuance of the building permit before the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals prior to commencing this proceeding, and thus their present claims are not properly before us (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Sabatini v Incorporated Vil. of Kensington, 284 AD2d 320 [2001]; Matter of Crystal Pond Homes v Prior, 267 AD2d 383 [1999]; Sloane v Annunziato, 234 AD2d 281 [1996]). 1987Consequently, this proceeding is not a premature proceeding seeking review of a nonfinal order, which requires exhaustion of the petitioner’s administrative remedies (see, CPLR 7801 [1]; Watergate II Apts, v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 ). | 1 | 2 |
Hewlett Associates v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences1985Petitioners’ brief concedes that the dismissal of the third cause of action, from which they have not appealed, moots their first cause of action, and if we accept for purposes of argument their contention that the second and fourth causes of action are properly brought under CPLR article 78, rather than Real Property Tax Law article 7 (see, Hewlett Assoc. v City of New York, 57 NY2d 356 ), those causes of action are nevertheless barred by limitations (CPLR 217). 1984Just because petitioners concede the assessor’s jurisdiction or that a portion of the tax is payable does not preclude a collateral attack if the challenge is to the method of assessment (Hewlett Assoc, v City of New York, supra, pp 364-365). 11 Petitioners’ challenge here clearly is based upon the allegation that the assessments were changed illegally as a result of the change to cooperative ownership. | 1 | 2 |
Booth v. 3669 Delaware, Inc.green1 sentence2024Thus, the court determined that Petitioners cannot assert such a claim now because Kendall - individually and as trustee - was released by the beneficiaries of the Trust affected by his actions as set forth in the 2016 Agreement (see Booth v 3669 Delaware, Inc., 92 NY2d 934, 935 [1998] ["Where ... the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, [it is] binding on the parties"]; King v Talbot, 40 NY 76, 90 [1869] ["The rule is perfectly well settled, that a cestui que trust [trust beneficiary] is at liberty to elect to approve an unauthorized investment, and enjoy its profits, or to reject | 1 | 1 |
King v. . Talbotgreen1 sentence2024Thus, the court determined that Petitioners cannot assert such a claim now because Kendall - individually and as trustee - was released by the beneficiaries of the Trust affected by his actions as set forth in the 2016 Agreement (see Booth v 3669 Delaware, Inc., 92 NY2d 934, 935 [1998] ["Where ... the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, [it is] binding on the parties"]; King v Talbot, 40 NY 76, 90 [1869] ["The rule is perfectly well settled, that a cestui que trust [trust beneficiary] is at liberty to elect to approve an unauthorized investment, and enjoy its profits, or to reject | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Gershowitz v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Brookhavengreen1 sentence2024Since the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals had the authority to review determinations of administrative officials with respect to local zoning laws ( see Town Law § 267-a[4]; Code of Town of New Windsor § 300-84[A]), the petitioners were required to challenge the determination of the Planning Board Engineer before the Zoning Board of Appeals ( see Matter of Swantz v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Cobleskill , 34 AD3d at 1160-1161 ; Matter of Levine v Town of Clarkstown , 307 AD2d 997, 999 ; Sabatini v Incorporated Vil. of Kensington , 284 AD2d 320, 321 ; see generally Matter of Gershowitz v Planning Bd | 1 | 1 |
| Beutel v. Beutelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Haggerty v. Planning Board of the Town of Sand Lakegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gilmore v. Planning Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Citizens Against Sprawl-Mart v. City of Niagara Fallsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hill v. Giulianigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.green | 1 | 1 |
| Grosso Moving & Packing Co. v. Damensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mandel v. Liebmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Christian v. Christiangreen | 1 | 1 |
| D'Alessandro v. Carrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leon v. Martinezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| 511 West 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ribeiro v. Town of North Hempsteadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bonney v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walton v. New York State Department of Correctional Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mathews v. Eldridgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Best Payphones, Inc. v. Department of Information Technology & Telecommunicationsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. v. Walkleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| McMahon v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ladd v. . Stevensongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maiello v. Chrysler Corp.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. ISS International Service System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Since the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals had the authority to review determinations of administrative officials with respect to local zoning laws ( see Town Law § 267-a[4]; Code of Town of New Windsor § 300-84[A]), the petitioners were required to challenge the determination of the Planning Board Engineer before the Zoning Board of Appeals ( see Matter of Swantz v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Cobleskill , 34 AD3d at 1160-1161 ; Matter of Levine v Town of Clarkstown , 307 AD2d 997, 999 ; Sabatini v Incorporated Vil. of Kensington , 284 AD2d 320, 321 ; see generally Matter of Gershowitz v Planning Bd 2008The petitioners were required to challenge the issuance of the building permit before the Village’s Zoning Board of Appeals prior to commencing this proceeding (see Matter of Levine v Town of Clarkstown, 307 AD2d 997, 999 [2003]; Sabatini v Incorporated Vil. of Kensington, 284 AD2d 320 [2001]). | 3 | 2003–2024 |
Spinney at Pond View, LLC v. Town Board of Schodack
green
2 sentences2024"Where, as here, governmental activity is being challenged, the immediate inquiry is whether the challenge could have been advanced in a CPLR article 78 proceeding". ( Spinney at Pond View, LLC v Town Bd. of the Town of Schodack , 99 AD3d 1088 , 1089 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]. 2024"Where, as here, governmental activity is being challenged, the immediate inquiry is whether the challenge could have been advanced in a CPLR article 78 proceeding". ( Spinney at Pond View, LLC v Town Bd. of the Town of Schodack , 99 AD3d 1088 , 1089 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Dreikausen v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences2012The Kaczkowskis acquired a building permit in 2008, obtained ZBA-approved use variances in 2008 and 2009 and, while they did not secure the required site plan approval until late in the process, their multi-year, ongoing construction was visible to all and certainly did not involve “a race to completion” (M atter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d at 172 ; see Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. 2012The Kaczkowskis acquired a building permit in 2008, obtained ZBA-approved use variances in 2008 and 2009 and, while they did not secure the required site plan approval until late in the process, their multi-year, ongoing construction was visible to all and certainly did not involve “a race to completion” (M atter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d at 172 ; see Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Basaranlar v. Pelham Bay General Hospital
neutral
2 sentences2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictiunally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of NY., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). 2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictionally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Regan v. New York State Board of Elections
neutral
2 sentences2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictiunally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of NY., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). 2007Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners’ failure to join it was jurisdictionally fatal (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]; Matter of Barbuto v Sarcone, 275 AD2d 424, 425 [2000]; Matter of Jenkins v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 AD2d 436, 437 [2000]; Matter of Regan v New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 AD2d 647 [1994]; Matter of Oberle v Caracappa, 133 AD2d 241 [1987]; Matter of Curdo v Wolf, 133 AD2d 188, 189 [1987]). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2000“In Fuentas v Shevin ( 407 US 67, 80 ), the court said: ‘For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: [All] “Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.” ’ Put another way, ‘at a minimum they [due process rights] require that deprivation of * * * property * * * be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case’ (Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306, 313 ). 1983In Fuentas v Shevin ( 407 US 67, 80 ), the court said: “For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: [All] ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.’” Put another way, “at a minimum they [due process rights] require that deprivation of * * * property * * * be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” (Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306, 313 .) It is undisputed that New York does not require either no | 2 | 1983–2000 |
Fuentes v. Shevin
green
2 sentences2000“In Fuentas v Shevin ( 407 US 67, 80 ), the court said: ‘For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: [All] “Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.” ’ Put another way, ‘at a minimum they [due process rights] require that deprivation of * * * property * * * be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case’ (Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306, 313 ). 1983In Fuentas v Shevin ( 407 US 67, 80 ), the court said: “For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: [All] ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.’” Put another way, “at a minimum they [due process rights] require that deprivation of * * * property * * * be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” (Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306, 313 .) It is undisputed that New York does not require either no | 2 | 1983–2000 |
Rakas v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1984Justice Powell wrote in a concurring opinion: “The petitioners do not challenge the constitutionality of the police action in stopping the automobile in which they were riding” ( 439 US 128, 150-151 , supra). . 1983It is also of interest to note that in Rakas v Illinois (supra), in a separate concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Powell, the court pointed up the difference between questioning the stop and the search itself and said (pp 150-151) “The petitioners do not challenge the constitutionality of the police action in stopping the automobile in which they were riding; nor do they complain of being made to get out of the vehicle. | 2 | 1983–1984 |
Jayne v. Talisman Energy USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024This record establishes that Kimball's counsel knew about Kendall's alleged bad acts, which Kimball uses as the basis for his current claim for repayment of commissions, when Kimball agreed in 2017 to permit trustee commissions to be paid to Kendall (see Jayne v Talisman Energy USA, Inc., 84 AD3d 1581 [3d Dept 20 I I] [recognizing on a motion to dismiss the parties' agreement ratifying past acts]; see also Beutel v Beutel, 55 NY2d 957 [ 1982]). 7 [* 7] another action pending, specifically, the Executors' separate cross-petition in this court for a determination that the Petitioners' claim rega | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re the Estate of Miller
neutral
1 sentence2024Kimball thus ratified the payments of commissions to Kendall, when, after he was aware of the conduct that is at the heart of the Petitioners' claim for breach of fiduciary duty, he and his counsel approved commissions to be paid to Kendall in 201 7 and 2018, directly contrary to his position in this proceeding that commissions should be repaid to the Trust (see Khaghan v Mehdizadeh, 217 AD3d 452 [1st Dept 2023] [co-trustee independently ratified sale]; see also Matter of Honig, 72 Misc 3d 823 , 832-33 [Sur Ct, Albany County 2021 ]; cf Matter of Miller, 175 Misc 583 [Sur Ct, Westchester County | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Concepcion green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Blair v. Cargill
neutral
1 sentence2024Thus, the court determined that Petitioners cannot assert such a claim now because Kendall - individually and as trustee - was released by the beneficiaries of the Trust affected by his actions as set forth in the 2016 Agreement (see Booth v 3669 Delaware, Inc., 92 NY2d 934, 935 [1998] ["Where ... the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, [it is] binding on the parties"]; King v Talbot, 40 NY 76, 90 [1869] ["The rule is perfectly well settled, that a cestui que trust [trust beneficiary] is at liberty to elect to approve an unauthorized investment, and enjoy its profits, or to reject | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Swantz v. Planning Board
green
1 sentence2024Since the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals had the authority to review determinations of administrative officials with respect to local zoning laws ( see Town Law § 267-a[4]; Code of Town of New Windsor § 300-84[A]), the petitioners were required to challenge the determination of the Planning Board Engineer before the Zoning Board of Appeals ( see Matter of Swantz v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Cobleskill , 34 AD3d at 1160-1161 ; Matter of Levine v Town of Clarkstown , 307 AD2d 997, 999 ; Sabatini v Incorporated Vil. of Kensington , 284 AD2d 320, 321 ; see generally Matter of Gershowitz v Planning Bd | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In THE MATTER OF CITIZENS AGAINST SPRAWL-MART v. City of Niagara Falls neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Matter of Haggerty v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Sand Lake neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Rowe v. Rhea green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Matter of Zieran v. Marvin green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| George v. Bloomberg green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Calenzo v. Shah green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Weidman v. Starkweather green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Richiez green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Nieves v. Girimonte green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Sanitation And Recycling Industry, Inc. v. City Of New York green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Barnhill v. New York City Housing Authority green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Watertown green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Morabito v. Campbell neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Rothstein v. Healey green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Flynn v. Olma green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Sposato v. Zoning Board of Appeals green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Matter of KL green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Woodfield Equities, L.L.C. v. Incorporation Village of Patchogue green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Woodfield Equities, L.L.C. v. Incorporated Village of Pathogue green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| New York State Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.