§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of ACME Bus Corp., Appellant,v.Orange County, et al., Respondents.

Brief

42 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. Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv

    87 N.Y.2d 384 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 882 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant testing service breached the implied covenant by ignoring evidence it invited the plaintiff to submit

  3. 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.

  4. Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

    67 N.Y.2d 400 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 657 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that failure to raise challenges to FEIS under state environmental law during proceedings could not be overlooked when determining whether failure to discuss issue in FEIS was reasonable

  5. Akpan v. Koch

    75 N.Y.2d 561 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 335 times
    In Akpan v. Koch (75 N.Y.2d 561, 570), the Court of Appeals recently explained that: "Judicial review of a lead agency's SEQRA determination is limited to whether the determination was made in accordance with lawful procedure and whether, substantively, the determination 'was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion' * * *.

  6. Riverkeeper v. Planning Bd.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9064 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 165 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 149. Argued October 18, 2007. Decided November 19, 2007. APPEAL, in the first three above-entitled proceedings, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered August 8, 2006. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, three judgments (one as to each proceeding) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Francis A. Nicolai, J.; op 2003 NY Slip Op 50776[U] [Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town

  7. Wooley v. Corr. Servs

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5705 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 115 times

    No. 129. Argued June 2, 2010. decided July 1, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered April 16, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Albany County (Kimberly A. O'Connor, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which had dismissed the petition seeking to annul respondent's determination denying petitioner inmate's grievance requesting

  8. Transactive Corp. v. New York State Department of Social Services

    92 N.Y.2d 579 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 138 times
    Holding that a subcontractor, whose bid was part of an unsuccessful general contractor's bid, did not have standing to bring a competitive bidding challenge, because it was “not within the zone of interests protected by” the public bidding statute

  9. Matter of Merson v. McNally

    90 N.Y.2d 742 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 115 times

    Argued September 10, 1997 Decided October 30, 1997 APPEAL, in the first above-entitled proceeding, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered May 13, 1996, which (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court (Judith A. Hillery, J.), entered in Putnam County in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissing a petition which sought to annul a negative declaration determination of the

  10. General Contrs. v. Thruway

    88 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 106 times
    Concluding contractor-bidders lacked standing to assert violations of constitutional and statutory provisions on behalf of employees

  11. Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11   Cited 539 times

    (a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review

  12. Section 500.22 - Motions for permission to appeal in civil cases

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.22   Cited 43 times

    (a) Filing and notice. In addition to the submission in digital format required by subsection 500.22(e) of this section, movant shall file an original and one copy of its motion, unless permitted to proceed pursuant to subsection 500.21(g), with proof of service of one copy on each other party. The motion shall be noticed for a return date in compliance with CPLR 5516 and subsection 500.21(b) of this Part. (b) Content. The motion shall be a single document, bound on the left, and shall contain in

  13. Section 156.12 - Transportation contracts awarded through a request for proposals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 156.12   Cited 2 times

    (a) Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (a) of subdivision 14 of section 305 of the Education Law, all contracts for the transportation of pupils which are subject to the competitive bidding requirements of General Municipal Law shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or through an evaluation of proposals submitted in response to a request for proposals by a board of education. (b) When a board of education elects to award a contract through an evaluation of proposals in response to

  14. Section 69-4.19 - Transportation

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 69-4.19

    (a) The municipality shall ensure that transportation is available beginning the first day of service as agreed upon in the individualized family service plan when transportation is necessary to enable the child and the child's family to receive early intervention services. (1) Transportation may be provided directly, by contract, or through reimbursement of the parent at a mileage rate authorized by the municipality for the use of a private vehicle or for other reasonable transportation costs, including