46 Cited authorities

  1. Ostrov v. Rozbruch

    91 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Ostrov, the First Department held that, in the context of summary judgment, "[s]upplemental affirmations... should be sparingly used to clarify limited issues, and should not be utilized as a matter of course to correct deficiencies in a party's moving or answering papers" (emphasis added).
  2. N.Y. State Corr. Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York

    94 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 283 times
    Affirming arbitration award reinstating employee to his position as correctional officer, with full pay, notwithstanding the employee's having flown a Nazi flag on the porch of his home
  3. Foley v. D'Agostino

    21 A.D.2d 60 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)   Cited 672 times
    Stating that “[t]hey may not assume and engage in the promotion of personal interests which are incompatible with the superior interests of their corporation.”
  4. Union Sch. Dist v. Human Appeal Bd.

    320 N.E.2d 859 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that actions or proceedings which seek only enforcement of private rights and duties are subject to the notice-of-claim provisions against school district while such provisions are not applicable to actions seeking to vindicate a public interest
  5. McConnell v. Commonwealth Pic. Corp.

    7 N.Y.2d 465 (N.Y. 1960)   Cited 162 times
    Holding contract for services unenforceable where plaintiff agreed to negotiate motion picture distribution rights for defendant and procured those rights through bribery
  6. Albright v. Metz

    88 N.Y.2d 656 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 53 times
    In Albright, as previously noted, an infant plaintiff operated a dirt bike on a path that had been used for such purposes for many years, and the property was found by the Court of Appeals to be suitable for ATVs based upon its general characteristics.
  7. Board of Educ. of Yonkers

    40 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Matter of Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers (40 NY2d 268 [1976]), we held that "a provision in a [CBA] guaranteeing public employees job security for a reasonable period of time is not prohibited by any statute or controlling decisional law and is not contrary to public policy" (id. at 271).
  8. Szerdahelyi v. Harris

    67 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 72 times
    In Szerdahelyi, the Appellate Division had reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-borrower and remanded the case for trial. The Court of Appeals directed the entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-borrower and expressly rejected Appellate Division Justice Asch's concurring opinion, wherein he had argued that the loan should be recharacterized as a purchase money mortgage, thereby precluding the defense of usury.
  9. Weissman v. Evans

    438 N.E.2d 397 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 65 times
    In Weissman v Evans (56 N.Y.2d 458, supra), we held that there was no rational basis for a wage disparity between District Court Judges in contiguous Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
  10. Gruen v. County of Suffolk

    187 A.D.2d 560 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 45 times

    November 16, 1992 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.). Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action are denied; and it is further, Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The Suffolk Association of Managerial Employees (hereinafter SAME) is an unincorporated association

  11. Section 28 - Cession during use for purposes thereof, with reservation of right to serve process

    N.Y. State Law § 28   Cited 12 times

    Title and jurisdiction to the following tracts or parcels of land have been ceded to the United States by this state, on condition that the jurisdiction so ceded should not prevent the execution thereon of any process, civil or criminal, issued under the authority of the state, except as such process might affect the property of the United States therein, and that such jurisdiction shall continue in the United States so long only as the land shall be used and occupied for the purposes of cession