§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Amira Beatty, Respondent,v.City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Brief

8 Cited authorities

  1. Pell v. Board of Education

    34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 5,556 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

  2. Peckham v. Calogero

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3585 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 516 times
    In Peckham v Calogero (12 NY3d 424 [2009]) the Court of Appeals upheld the determination of the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), which granted a landlord's application to refuse renewal of its tenant's lease.

  3. City Sch. Dist. of the New York v. McGraham

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8228 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 107 times

    2011-11-17 CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. Colleen McGRAHAM, Respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath, Cheryl Payer and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellant. Maria Elena Gonzalez, New York City, and Richard E. Casagrande for respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Stephen J. McGrath, Cheryl Payer and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for appellant. Maria Elena Gonzalez, New York City, and Richard

  4. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  5. Cipollaro v. New York City Department of Education

    83 A.D.3d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 32 times
    In Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 83 AD3d 543 (1st Dep't. 2011), a teacher's termination was upheld because the Hearing Officer found that the teacher had "knowingly defrauded respondent of $98,000 over a two-year period by enrolling two of her children in New York City public schools when she and her family lived in Westchester County..."

  6. Principe v. New York City Dep't of Educ.

    94 A.D.3d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 28 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Hearing 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

  7. Principe v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8568 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 21 times

    2012-12-13 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

  8. Montanez v. Dep't of Educ. of N.Y.

    110 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    2013-10-10 In re Madelyn MONTANEZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents. The Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel Dugan of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris of counsel), for respondents. TOM The Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel Dugan of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B. Morris