§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Exeter Building Corp., et al., Appellants,v.Town of Newburgh, et al., Respondents.

Brief

42 Cited authorities

  1. Fundamental Portfolio Advisors v. Tocqueville Asset

    7 N.Y.3d 96 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 453 times
    Holding contractual requirement of written consent may be waived if knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally abandoned

  2. Pecoraro v. Bd. of Appeals

    2 N.Y.3d 608 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 341 times   1 Legal Analyses

    59. Argued March 23, 2004. Decided May 4, 2004. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered April 21, 2003. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Anthony L. Parga, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which annulled respondent's determination denying petitioner's application for an area variance and remitted the matter

  3. Watergate v. Buffalo Sewer

    46 N.Y.2d 52 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 671 times
    Holding that "one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law"

  4. Toys "R" Us v. Silva

    89 N.Y.2d 411 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 267 times
    Stating that, generally, abandonment requires an intent to relinquish and some overt act or failure to act, but that "the inclusion of a lapse period in the zoning provision removes the requirement of intent to abandon - discontinuance of nonconforming activity for the specified period constitutes an abandonment regardless of intent"

  5. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.

    248 N.Y. 339 (N.Y. 1928)   Cited 2,021 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreseeability is a factor in determining duty and stating that "the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance would be the orbit of the duty"

  6. Town of Orangetown v. Magee

    88 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 174 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "Building Inspector . . . implement[ed] Town Policy" where the zoning code "vest[ed] the Building Inspector, alone, with the authority to revoke building permits"

  7. Jennings v. Mental Health off

    90 N.Y.2d 227 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 114 times

    Argued April 30, 1997; Decided June 12, 1997 Appeal from Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department, Albany County Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, Albany ( Patrick Barnett-Mulligan, Barbara G. Billet and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for New York State Office of Mental Health and another, appellants. Stein Schonfeld, Garden City ( Robert L. Schonfeld, Seth P. Stein and Beth Pepper of counsel), for Rehabilitation Support Services, Inc., appellant. Vincent J. McArdle, Jr.

  8. E.F.S. Ventures v. Foster

    71 N.Y.2d 359 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 142 times
    In Matter of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v Foster (71 N.Y.2d 359), we recognized that the exercise of site plan approval powers requires "[a] large measure of discretion" (id., at 370).

  9. Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc., v. Boland

    282 N.Y. 256 (N.Y. 1940)   Cited 456 times
    In Matter of Stork Rest. v. Boland (282 N.Y. 256, 267), the court said: "Where there is conflict in the testimony produced before the Board, where reasonable men might differ as to whether the testimony of one witness should be accepted or the testimony of another witness be rejected, where from the evidence either of two conflicting inferences may be drawn, the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the Board.

  10. Ellington Constr v. Zoning Bd.

    77 N.Y.2d 114 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 79 times
    Finding petitioner had vested right where town approved petitioner's plan and petitioner installed various improvements on the land prior to amendments to applicable zoning ordinance