8 Cited authorities

  1. In re Gilman v. N.Y.S. Div. of Housing

    99 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 182 times
    In Gilman, we held that DHCR acted irrationally when it applied an amendment relaxing evidentiary requirements for admission of owner records to permit an owner to reopen the record, nearly a decade after the tenant commenced the proceeding and during the administrative appeal, expressing concern that "the rules were changed in midstream" (99 NY2d at 147, 149-152).
  2. Matter Gould v. Board of Educ

    81 N.Y.2d 446 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 173 times
    Finding tenure by estoppel based on "petitioner's continuing service as a teacher in the District's employ"
  3. Council of Teachers v. Boces

    63 N.Y.2d 100 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 139 times

    Decided September 20, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Bernard McCaffrey, J. Stanley A. Immerman for appellant. Seymour H. Kligler for Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County, respondent. MEYER, J. When the respondent in an article 78 proceeding challenges petitioner's standing only, it is error to dismiss the petition on the merits prior to service of respondent's answer. The mandate of CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) that, "If

  4. Kahn v. New York City Dep't of Educ.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1098 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 56 times

    2012-02-14 Leslie KAHN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al., Respondents.In the Matter of Doreen Nash, Appellant, v. The Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents. New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City (Adriana Piñon and Arthur Eisenberg of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein and Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel)

  5. Abramovich v. Board of Educ

    46 N.Y.2d 450 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 105 times
    Dismissing claims based on petitioner's stipulation in part because "even now, from the vantage point of hindsight, petitioner does not seriously controvert his acceptance and understanding of the terms of the stipulation"
  6. Coleman v. Coleman

    79 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 28 times
    In Coleman, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision not to dismiss based on failure to exhaust because "[a]ccepting as true the assertion that respondents maintain policies and procedures as alleged, Coleman's pursuit of the claims through the administrative process would have been futile."
  7. Matter of Folta v. Sobol

    210 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    December 29, 1994 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Canfield, J.). White, J. On October 17, 1990, respondent Board of Education of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) found probable cause to prefer disciplinary charges against petitioner, a tenured teacher, due to his alleged sexual harassment of four female high school students. In accordance with petitioner's demand under Education Law § 3020-a, a hearing was conducted over a span of six days, concluding on May 7, 1991. Prior

  8. Apex Air Freight, Inc. v. O'Cleireacain

    210 A.D.2d 7 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    December 1, 1994 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.). The court properly determined that plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies as the matter involved solely an issue of law (see, Matter of Herberg v Perales, 180 A.D.2d 166, 169) and resort to administrative remedies would cause plaintiff irreparable harm (Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57). The Commissioner is barred by the three-year statute of limitations (Administrative Code