§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of County of Monroe, Appellant,v.Nirav R. Shah,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

72 Cited authorities

  1. Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc.

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 9320 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 645 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that survivors' limited right to control the burial of a deceased relative did not imply a general, common-law property right in body parts

  2. Simonds v. Simonds

    45 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 561 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration “is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration”

  3. Klostermann v. Cuomo

    61 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 409 times
    In Klostermann, the public agencies involved were in repeated noncompliance with the command of Mental Hygiene Law § 29.15 (g), which required preparation of a written service plan, with prescribed contents, for every person discharged from state psychiatric hospitals.

  4. Matter of Brusco v. Braun

    84 N.Y.2d 674 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 279 times
    In Brusco, for example, the Article 78 proceeding sought to compel the issuance of a judgment to which the Petitioner was entitled by law.

  5. Thyroff v. Nationwide

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2442 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 190 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that computer files could be the subject of a conversion claim, where plaintiff was entirely denied use of those files

  6. Stiver v. Good

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9062 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 143 times
    Holding defendant cannot be said to have launched an instrument of harm because there is no evidence that condition was made less safe

  7. Albany Law Sch. v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3227 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 103 times

    No. 65 04-26-2012 In the Matter of Albany Law School et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities et al., Appellants-Respondents. Victor Paladino, for appellants-respondents. Jennifer J. Monthie, for respondents-appellants. NYSARC, Inc.; National Disability Rights Network et al., amici curiae. GRAFFEO Victor Paladino, for appellants-respondents. Jennifer J. Monthie, for respondents-appellants. NYSARC, Inc.; National Disability Rights

  8. Graziano v. County of Albany

    3 N.Y.3d 475 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 109 times

    146. Argued October 13, 2004. Decided November 30, 2004. Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2003. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment, as amended, of the Supreme Court, Albany County (Louis C. Benza, J.; op 2003 NY Slip Op 51035[U]), entered in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, which had denied respondents'

  9. City of New York v. State

    86 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 112 times
    Observing "extreme reluctance of courts to intrude in the political relationships between the Legislature, the State and its governmental subdivisions"

  10. Matter of the Estate of Witbeck

    245 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 95 times
    Denying motion to dismiss complaint for unjust enrichment because claim was at law and brought within limitations period

  11. Section 601.3 - Reimbursement claiming time limits

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 18 § 601.3   Cited 6 times

    Except as otherwise provided, to be eligible for State reimbursement, expenditures for public assistance, care and services, or for any other activity which is subject to reimbursement by the department, must be made within the time limits set forth in this section and must be included in a claim submitted by the social services district to the department for the time period in which such expenditures are claimed to have been made. (a) Claims for expenditures which are subject to reimbursement by