§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Robert W. Kowal, Appellant,v.Thomas P. DiNapoli, et al., Respondents.

Brief

30 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. 300 Gramatan v. Human Rights

    45 N.Y.2d 176 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 2,301 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).

  3. Matter of Howard v. Wyman

    28 N.Y.2d 434 (N.Y. 1971)   Cited 822 times
    Holding that the "interpretation given a statute by the administering agency 'if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld'"

  4. Matter of Field Delivery Serv

    66 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 378 times
    Stating that agency decision "which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious"

  5. Matter of Lichtenstein v. Board of Trustees

    57 N.Y.2d 1010 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 256 times
    In Lichtenstein v. Bd. of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 57 N.Y.2d 1010, 1012, 457 N.Y.S.2d 472, 443 N.E.2d 946 (1982), the Court of Appeals of New York noted that the term "accident" is not specifically defined in the Code.

  6. Matter of McCambridge v. McGuire

    62 N.Y.2d 563 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 139 times
    Reversing Board of Trustees and awarding ADR benefits

  7. 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.

  8. Beckley v. Nitido

    123 A.D.3d 1330 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    2014-12-18 In the Matter of Ronald J. BECKLEY, Petitioner, v. Thomas NITIDO, as Deputy State Comptroller, Respondent. Baker, Leshko, Saline & Blosser, LLP, White Plains (Anthony C. Saline of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for respondent. PETERS Baker, Leshko, Saline & Blosser, LLP, White Plains (Anthony C. Saline of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for

  9. Corona Realty Holdings, LLC v. Town of North Hempstead

    32 A.D.3d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    In Corona Realty Holdings. L.L.C. v Town of N. Hempstead (32 AD3d 393 [2d Dept 2006)]), a case cited in support of the petition, the Court reversed a town board's 2004 designation of a country club as a historical landmark because it was based upon the same facts which were presented to the same town board in 1996 when landmark status for the property was rejected, and the town board failed to offer any explanation for its failure to follow the 1996 precedent.

  10. Tierney v. New York State Comptroller

    90 A.D.3d 1215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    2011-12-8 In the Matter of Brian P. TIERNEY, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER et al., Respondents. Jonathan I. Edelstein, New York City, for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondents. LAHTINEN Jonathan I. Edelstein, New York City, for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondents. Before: ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ. LAHTINEN, J. Proceeding

  11. Section 9 - Definitions

    N.Y. Workers' Comp. Law § 9   Cited 17 times

    For the purposes of this article, the following terms shall mean: 1. "World Trade Center rescue" shall mean any activity involving an employee of a private voluntary hospital that worked rescue operations under contract with the city of New York under direction of the fire department of the city of New York, conducted between September eleventh and September fifteenth, two thousand one inclusive at or in the vicinity of the World Trade Center site of the September eleventh, two thousand one terrorist