§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

42 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. DaimlerChrysler v. Spitzer

    7 N.Y.3d 653 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 225 times
    In Spitzer, James Warner bought a new truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation in March 2003. Shortly after acquiring the truck, Warner discovered a transmission problem and attempted to have the problem fixed on five occasions between April and November 2003.

  3. 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).

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. Rangolan v. County of Nassau

    96 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 99 times
    In Rangolan v. County of Nassau (96 NY2d 42), this Court held that CPLR 1602 (2) (iv) did not preclude apportionment when a defendant's liability arose from a nondelegable duty because the subsection was a savings provision and not an exception.

  7. In Matter of Cintron

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7376 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 66 times
    In Cintron, the Court of Appeals held that the “four-year limitations/look-back period” applicable to rent overcharge claims does not preclude the agency from considering previously issued rent reduction orders which remain in effect during that period (id. at 355–56, 912 N.Y.S.2d 498, 938 N.E.2d 931).

  8. In re Dutchess County Dept. of Social Ser., v. Day

    96 N.Y.2d 149 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 62 times

    Decided May 3, 2001. 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 February 28, 2000, which affirmed an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Damian J. Amodeo, J.), denying objections to two orders of that Family Court (Esther R. Furman, H.E.) that directed respondents to pay a total of $4,375 as reimbursement to petitioner for money it expended on behalf of respondents' minor child while

  9. 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

  10. People v. Duggins

    3 N.Y.3d 522 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 40 times
    Attaching significance to the Legislature's use of the present tense in construing a section of the Penal Law

  11. Section 1 - Tax imposed

    26 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 1,460 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Providing a 20–percent top rate for most long-term capital gains

  12. Section 22 - Credit for the elderly and the permanently and totally disabled

    26 U.S.C. § 22   Cited 1,085 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing an initial credit of $7,500 to a qualifying married couple filing jointly and “$3,750 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return”

  13. 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

  14. Section 32 - Earned income

    26 U.S.C. § 32   Cited 361 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Defining earned income in the Internal Revenue Code as "wages, salaries, tips, and other employee compensation, but only if such amounts are includible in gross income for a taxable year"

  15. Section 25A - American Opportunity and Lifetime Learning credits

    26 U.S.C. § 25A   Cited 94 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Outlining requirements for the program

  16. 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