27 Cited authorities

Pell v. Board of Education
34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 5,551 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal
Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7480 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 371 times
In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).
Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman
60 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 237 times
In Matter of Schumer v Holtzman (60 N.Y.2d 46, 55), a case involving removal, we held that generally a public prosecutor should not be removed unless necessary to protect a defendant from "actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence" (id.; see also, People v Herr, 86 N.Y.2d 638; People v Jackson, supra).
Matter of Jones v. Berman
37 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 288 times
In Matter of Jones v Berman (37 NY2d 42, 52-53), the Court held that although the Social Services Commissioner may have promulgated a regulation in order to prevent fraud, the regulation imposed a requirement that was not found in the statute.
Matter of Colton v. Berman
21 N.Y.2d 322 (N.Y. 1967) Cited 322 times
In Matter of Colton v. Berman (21 N.Y.2d 322, 333) Judge BREITEL observed: "Tenants and landlord, from their various stances, seek to establish either a virtually uncontrolled discretion or a virtually unvarying mandate on the agency.
Columbus Apts., Inc. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
5 N.Y.3d 303 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 91 times
96. Argued May 4, 2005. Decided June 14, 2005. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered February 26, 2004. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, had denied the petition to review a determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community
Blanco v. AT&T Co.
90 N.Y.2d 757 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 73 times
Holding that personal injury claim arising from repetitive stress injuries accrued at the time the plaintiffs began experiencing symptoms, but not at the time they discovered the nature of their injuries
Enright v. Lilly Co.
77 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 89 times
Finding no preconception duty, and noting that it is the courts duty to "confine liability within manageable limits."
Finger Lakes v. Racing Bd.
45 N.Y.2d 471 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 127 times
Striking down an administrative agency's regulation for being in “direct conflict” with the statute
Moran Towing v. Tax Commn
72 N.Y.2d 166 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 80 times
Argued May 25, 1988 Decided July 12, 1988 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Daniel H. Prior, Jr., J. Gwynne H. Wales, Emanuel G. Demos and Robert S. Herbst for appellants. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary, O. Peter Sherwood and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent. William J. O'Brien and Ernesto V. Luzzatto for The Maritime Association of the Port of New York/New Jersey, amicus curiae. SIMONS, J. The issue presented is
Section 6013 - Joint returns of income tax by husband and wife
26 U.S.C. § 6013 Cited 849 times 12 Legal Analyses
Granting married couples the ability to file income taxes jointly
Section 4 - Contempts of either house
N.Y. Legis. Law § 4 Cited 4 times
Each house may punish by imprisonment not extending beyond the same session of the legislature, as for a contempt, for the following offenses only: 1. Arresting a member or officer of either house in violation of his privilege from arrest; 2. Disorderly conduct of its members, officers or others in the immediate view and presence of the house, tending to interrupt its proceedings; 3. The publication of a false and malicious report of its proceedings, or of the conduct of a member in his legislative
Section 1.6013-4 - Applicable rules
26 C.F.R. § 1.6013-4 Cited 9 times
Explaining that if a spouse establishes that he or she signed a return under duress, that return is not a joint return and the individual who signed that return is not jointly and severally liable for any deficiency in tax with respect to the return

In the Matter of Brookford, LLC, Appellant,v.New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, et al., Respondents.

27 Cited authorities

Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

In Roberts, this Court rejected DHCR's long-standing statutory interpretation and concluded that luxury deregulation was unavailable in any building during receipt of J–51 benefits (13 N.Y.3d at 285–287, 890 N.Y.S.2d 388, 918 N.E.2d 900).

In Matter of Jones v Berman (37 NY2d 42, 52-53), the Court held that although the Social Services Commissioner may have promulgated a regulation in order to prevent fraud, the regulation imposed a requirement that was not found in the statute.

In Matter of Colton v. Berman (21 N.Y.2d 322, 333) Judge BREITEL observed: "Tenants and landlord, from their various stances, seek to establish either a virtually uncontrolled discretion or a virtually unvarying mandate on the agency.

Holding that personal injury claim arising from repetitive stress injuries accrued at the time the plaintiffs began experiencing symptoms, but not at the time they discovered the nature of their injuries

Finding no preconception duty, and noting that it is the courts duty to "confine liability within manageable limits."

Striking down an administrative agency's regulation for being in “direct conflict” with the statute

Granting married couples the ability to file income taxes jointly

Explaining that if a spouse establishes that he or she signed a return under duress, that return is not a joint return and the individual who signed that return is not jointly and severally liable for any deficiency in tax with respect to the return