§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Hague Corporation, Respondent,v.Empire Zone Designation Board, et al., Appellants.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Carlton

    512 U.S. 26 (1994)   Cited 181 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding no violation of due process where retroactive application of a legislative amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose"

  2. Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School District

    (N.Y. May. 12, 1998)   Cited 75 times
    In Majewski the New York Court of Appeals observed that "the date that legislation is to take effect is a separate question from whether the statute should apply to claims and rights then in existence."

  3. Morales v. Gross

    230 A.D.2d 7 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 60 times

    April 21, 1997 APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court (Frank Vaccaro, J.), entered December 4, 1994 in Kings County, which, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, denied a motion by the third-party defendant to dismiss the third-party complaint. Goldberg Carlton, New York City (Gary M. Carlton, Robert Goldberg and Steven S. Efron of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant. Kelly McGlynn, New York City (Martin M. McGlynn of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent

  4. Builders v. Empire Zone Designation Bd.

    95 A.D.3d 1381 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 21 times

    2012-05-3 In the Matter of MORRIS BUILDERS, LP, et al., Appellants, v. EMPIRE ZONE DESIGNATION BOARD et al., Respondents. General Municipal Law §§ 959[a][v][6], 959[w]. Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, L.L.P., White Plains (Philip M. Halpern of counsel), for appellants. EGAN JR. Unconstitutional as Applied General Municipal Law §§ 959[a][v][6], 959[w]. Collier, Halpern, Newberg, Nolletti & Bock, L.L.P., White Plains (Philip M. Halpern of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman,

  5. Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum

    93 N.Y.2d 729 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 30 times
    In Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Museum of Modern Art (93 NY2d 729, 732), we were called upon to decide "whether Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 12.03, which protects the artwork of nonresident lenders from any kind of seizure while on exhibit in New York State, encompasses a subpoena duces tecum requiring production of two paintings... on loan to the Museum of Modern Art in New York" from a museum in Vienna (internal quotation marks omitted).

  6. James Square Associates LP v. Mullen

    91 A.D.3d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    In James Square Associates, LP v Mullen (91 AD3d 164 [4th Dept., 2011]) the Court affirmed the decision of Justice Cherundolo, not on the absence of legislative intent to make the revocation of Empire Zone certificates retroactive, but rather on substantive due process grounds.

  7. Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan

    9 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1961)   Cited 84 times
    In Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan (9 N.Y.2d 293), not only did the court expressly reserve the very question here sought to be raised (p. 303) but one judge actually expressed the view that section 45-a was "constitutionally invalid" in its entirety (pp. 311-315, per DYE, J., concurring).

  8. J-P Group, LLC v. New York State Department of Economic Development

    91 A.D.3d 1363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    1/31/2012 In the Matter of J–P GROUP, LLC, Petitioner–Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Empire State Development Corporation, Commissioner of Economic Development, Dennis Mullen (Acting), Empire Zone Designation Board, Respondents–Appellants, et al., Respondent. General Municipal Law § 959(a) Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of Counsel), for Respondents–Appellants. PRESENT: SMITH Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth

  9. Replan Development, Inc. v. Department of Housing Preservation & Development

    70 N.Y.2d 451 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Replan Dev., Inc. v. Department of Housing Preservation & Dev., 70 N.Y.2d 451, 522 N.Y.S.2d 485, 517 N.E.2d 200 (1987), we adopted a "harsh and oppressive" standard when evaluating the retroactive application of a tax statute under due process.

  10. People v. Korkala

    99 A.D.2d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 28 times
    Noting that a "provision contained in the initial version of the [proposedl981 Amendments] that would have eliminated the 'cloak of confidentiality' requirement for invoking the Shield Law was deleted from the version finally passed"

  11. Section 2 - Connecticut boundary line

    N.Y. State Law § 2   Cited 30 times

    The boundary line between the states of New York and Connecticut is as follows: Commencing at a granite monument (No. 1), at the northwest corner of the state of Connecticut, marking the corner of Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut, in latitude 42º 02' 58" .427 and longitude 73º 29' 15" .959; thence south 2º 42' 30" west 30,569 feet to a granite monument (No. 12) 470 feet south of the Bird Hill road between Millerton and Ore Hill in latitude 41º 57' 56" .772 and longitude 73º 29' 35" .078; thence

  12. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation