Pell v. Board of Education
34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 5,556 times 1 Legal AnalysesDiscussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal
Lackow v. Department of Education
51 A.D.3d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 263 timesDeciding Article 75 petition to vacate a § 3020-a hearing decision
Hackett v. Milbank, Tweed
86 N.Y.2d 146 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 139 timesArgued June 7, 1995 Decided July 5, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Edith Miller, J. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy, New York City (Russell E. Brooks and David R. Gelfand of counsel), for appellant pro se. Fryer Ross, New York City (Gerald E. Ross of counsel), and Charles W. Wolfram, Ithaca, for respondent. SIMONS, J. Petitioner was formerly a partner in respondent but now is a member of another firm. He contends that respondent owes him
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. v. State
75 N.Y.2d 175 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 159 timesHolding that New York's lemon law is a breach of contract action, where the replacement remedy is analogous to the equitable remedy of specific performance and the refund remedy is the equivalent of an action for rescission, in the context of whether or not a lemon law action invokes the right to trial by jury
Matter of Town of Callicoon
70 N.Y.2d 907 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 140 timesDecided December 21, 1987 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Harold J. Hughes, Jr., J. Barton W. Bloom for appellant. Frederick W.V. Schadt, Jr., for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated. Where a dispute has been arbitrated pursuant to a broad arbitration agreement between the parties, the resulting award may not be vacated unless it is violative
Cortlandt Home v. Axelrod
66 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 139 timesReviewing an Article 78 proceeding brought by a provider for declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit DOH from recouping or attempting to recoup overpayments
Asch v. N.Y.C. Bd./Dep't of Educ.
104 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) Cited 53 timesHearing officer took into account seriousness of charges against petitioner and lack of prior disciplinary history during 20-year teaching career, and thus penalty not disproportionate to offense
Principe v. New York City Dep't of Educ.
94 A.D.3d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 28 times 1 Legal AnalysesHearing Officer failed to consider all of the circumstances and relevant evidence, and viewed the incidents in isolation and divorced from the context in which they occurred, thus likely influencing his determination that petitioner should be terminated. Lesser sanctions are available
Principe v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8568 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 21 times2012-12-13 In the Matter of Peter PRINCIPE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellant. Lichten & Bright, PC, New York City (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein of counsel), for appellant. Lichten & Bright, PC, New York City (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for respondent. On review of submissions
Batyreva v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
95 A.D.3d 792 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 20 times2012-05-31 Olga BATYREVA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. N.Y.C. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent–Respondent. Olga Batyreva, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman Corenthal of counsel), for respondent. Olga Batyreva, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Norman Corenthal of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered June 22, 2010, denying the petition to vacate an arbitration
Section 3020-A - Disciplinary procedures and penalties
N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020-A Cited 919 timesApplying to "person enjoying the benefits of tenure"