§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of the Board of Managers of French Oaks Condominium, Respondent,v.Town of Amherst, et al., Appellants, Williamsville Central School District, Intervenor-Respondent.

Brief

35 Cited authorities

  1. Cohen v. Hallmark Cards

    45 N.Y.2d 493 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 1,945 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard of review in assessing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether there is "simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial"

  2. FMC Corp. v. Unmack

    92 N.Y.2d 179 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 231 times

    92 N.Y.2d 179 699 N.E.2d 893, 677 N.Y.S.2d 269 In the Matter of FMC CORPORATION (PEROXYGEN CHEMICALS DIVISION), Appellant, v. David UNMACK, as Assessor of Town of Tonawanda, et al., Respondents, et al., Intervenor-Respondent. In the Matter of SOUTH SLOPE HOLDING CORP. et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF the TOWN OF JERUSALEM et al., Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.) In the Matter of SOUTH SLOPE HOLDING CORP. et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF the TOWN OF JERUSALEM et

  3. Wagman v. Bradshaw

    292 A.D.2d 84 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 121 times
    In Wagman v Bradshaw (292 AD2d 84, 91 [2d Dept 2002]), the Court held that the trial court "committed reversible error in permitting the plaintiff's expert, who presented the only medical testimony offered on the plaintiff's case-in-chief, to testify as to the interpretation of MRI films, as set forth in a written report of a nontestifying healthcare professional, for the truth of the matters asserted in the report."

  4. Cummins v. County of Onondaga

    84 N.Y.2d 322 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 81 times
    In Cummins (84 NY2d at 324), the issue was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's damage verdict for conscious pain and suffering where the decedent drowned after she lost control of her car and it flipped over and landed in a pond.

  5. Roth v. City of Syracuse

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4271 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 21 times

    2013-06-11 In the Matter of Norman E. ROTH et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE et al., Respondents. (And Other Proceedings.). Hancock Estabrook, LLP, Syracuse (Alan J. Pierce of counsel), for appellants. D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirando, Bradley E. Keem and Elizabeth deV. Moeller of counsel), and Mary Anne Doherty, Corporation Counsel (Shannon M. Jones of counsel) for respondents. RIVERA Hancock Estabrook, LLP, Syracuse (Alan J. Pierce of counsel), for appellants. D.J. &

  6. Town of Islip

    49 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 72 times

    Argued January 9, 1980 Decided February 12, 1980 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, DAVID L. GLICKMAN, J. Francis G. Caldeira, Town Attorney (William J. Kent of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Edward Flower for respondents-appellants. WACHTLER, J. In a condemnation case, where the Town of Islip acquired land which at the time of taking was undeveloped but had been restrictively zoned residential by the town, the Supreme Court, after trial

  7. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. State

    103 A.D.2d 211 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Chase Manhattan Bank v State of New York (103 AD2d 211), this Court held that property taken in condemnation must be valued as restricted in use by wetlands regulations, but that an owner who could prove a reasonable probability of successfully challenging the application of the regulations as an unconstitutional taking of its property would be entitled to an increment, representing the premium that a knowledgeable buyer would be willing to pay for a potential change to a more valuable use.

  8. People v. First American Corp.

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8450 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Treating compliance with OCC regulation 12 C.F.R § 34.44 as relevant to an appraisal service provider's compliance with Title XI of FIRREA

  9. Bialystock Bloom v. Gleason

    290 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 21 times
    In Bialystock & Bloom v. Gleason, 290 AD2d 607, 610 (3d Dept 2002), the court indicated that when real estate comparables "required extensive adjustment" their "evidentiary value was diminished."

  10. Thomas v. Davis

    96 A.D.3d 1412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    2012-06-8 In the Matter of Tom THOMAS and Thomas Estates West, Petitioners–Appellants, v. Cynthia L. Boheen DAVIS, Assessor, and Board of Assessment Review of Town of Clarendon, Orleans County, Respondents–Respondents. Jacobson Law Firm, P.C., Pittsford (Robert L. Jacobson of Counsel), for Petitioners–Appellants. Bennett, Difilippo & Kurtzhalts, LLP, East Aurora (Joel R. Kurtzhalts of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents. Jacobson Law Firm, P.C., Pittsford (Robert L. Jacobson of Counsel), for P

  11. Section 202.59 - Tax assessment review proceedings in counties outside the City of New York; special rules

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 202.59   Cited 162 times

    (a) Applicability. This section shall apply to every tax assessment review proceeding brought pursuant to title 1 of article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law in counties outside the City of New York. (b) Statement of income and expenses. Before the note of issue and certificate of readiness may be filed, the petitioner shall have served on the respondent, in triplicate, a statement that the property is not income-producing, or a copy of a verified or certified statement of the income and expenses on