25 Cited authorities

Securities Comm'n v. Chenery Corp.
332 U.S. 194 (1947) Cited 4,140 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that reviewing court may consider only grounds invoked by agency
300 Gramatan v. Human Rights
45 N.Y.2d 176 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 2,302 times
In 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights (45 NY2d 176), we stated that "substantial evidence consists of proof within the whole record of such quality and quantity as to generate conviction in and persuade a fair and detached fact finder that, from that proof as a premise, a conclusion or ultimate fact may be extracted reasonably — probatively and logically" (id. at 181).
Matter of Gray v. Adduci
73 N.Y.2d 741 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 125 times
Stating that "[h]earsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination"
Matter of Montauk Improvement v. Proccacino
41 N.Y.2d 913 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 120 times
In Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino (41 N.Y.2d 913), the Court of Appeals held: "'[A] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination * * * which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.
Telaro v. Telaro
25 N.Y.2d 433 (N.Y. 1969) Cited 121 times
Argued October 28, 1969 Decided December 4, 1969 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, FREDERICK BACKER, J. Leonard C. Shalleck, Irving I. Erdheim and Milton P. Falk for appellant. Morris H. Halpern and Abraham J. Heller for respondent. BREITEL, J. This appeal involves an action by a wife to recover, inter alia, one half of some $24,800 withdrawn by her husband, defendant-respondent, from a brokerage account held at that time in the names of both
Cayuga-Onondaga Bd. v. Sweeney
89 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 39 times
Discussing briefly the legislative history of § 220 and the prevailing wage constitutional amendment
Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts
94 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983) Cited 57 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a project is not publicly financed when "[t]he public involvement concerns only the creation of the economic conditions and incentives which will encourage and foster this type of private development"
Matter of Barry v. O'Connell
303 N.Y. 46 (N.Y. 1951) Cited 140 times
In Matter of Barry v. O'Connell (303 N.Y. 46, 52) it is stated that "Although the standard fixed by the Legislature for locating 'off premises liquor and wine stores in neighborhood communities' is required to be a location 'which most effectively serves public convenience and advantage'", the Authority, in its second reason — for disapproving the petitioner's application, stated (p. 49) its conclusion to be "In view of the type of neighborhood, there is no need for a package store at the location applied for".
Matter of Cerie County Indus. Development v. Roberts
63 N.Y.2d 810 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
Argued September 11, 1984 Decided October 9, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Norman E. Joslin, J. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( John Q. Driscoll, Peter H. Schiff and Peter B. Sullivan of counsel), for appellant. James L. Magavern, Susan C. Goldberg, Marianne E. Hanley and Francis W. Gruene for respondents. Frank S. Kedzielawa for intervenor-respondent, precluded. Robert H. Basso for Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders and
New York Charter School Ass'n v. Smith
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7375 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 10 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Matter of New York Charter School Association v. Smith, 15 N.Y.3d 403, 914 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2010], the court held that charter schools are not “public entities” as defined in Labor Law § 220 subject to the prevailing wage rate requirements under Article I, § 17 of the State Constitution.

In the Matter of M.G.M. Insulation, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Colleen C. Gardner,, Respondent.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that reviewing court may consider only grounds invoked by agency

Stating that "[h]earsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination"

In Matter of Montauk Improvement v Proccacino (41 N.Y.2d 913), the Court of Appeals held: "'[A] reviewing court, in dealing with a determination * * * which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.

Discussing briefly the legislative history of § 220 and the prevailing wage constitutional amendment

Holding that a project is not publicly financed when "[t]he public involvement concerns only the creation of the economic conditions and incentives which will encourage and foster this type of private development"

In Matter of New York Charter School Association v. Smith, 15 N.Y.3d 403, 914 N.Y.S.2d 696 [2010], the court held that charter schools are not “public entities” as defined in Labor Law § 220 subject to the prevailing wage rate requirements under Article I, § 17 of the State Constitution.