§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of J-P Group, LLC, Respondent,v.New York State Department of Economic Development, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent.

Brief

32 Cited authorities

  1. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray Co.

    467 U.S. 717 (1984)   Cited 759 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process, a burden "met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose"

  2. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

    428 U.S. 1 (1976)   Cited 927 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a "rational measure to spread the costs of the employee's disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor"

  3. United States v. Carlton

    512 U.S. 26 (1994)   Cited 181 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding no violation of due process where retroactive application of a legislative amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose"

  4. Kingsbrook v. Allstate

    61 A.D.3d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 162 times
    Stating that "[j]udicial notice has never been strictly limited to the constitutions, resolutions, ordinances, and regulations of government, but has been applied by case law to other public documents that are generated in a manner which assures their reliability," including "material derived from official government Web sites . . ."

  5. United States v. Darusmont

    449 U.S. 292 (1981)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the permissible period of retroactivity for federal taxation statutes "has been confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation."

  6. Long v. State

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5231 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 113 times
    In Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269, 276 (2006), the Court of Appeals dismissed an unjust conviction claim because it was verified by counsel, not personally by the claimant, citing subdivision 4 and also quoting the 1984 Report of the Law Revision Commission that a claim "must be personally verified."

  7. In the Matter of Gleason

    96 N.Y.2d 117 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 125 times
    Noting that the Legislature conveyed "a sense of immediacy," by, among other things, "direct[ing] that the amendment was to take effect immediately"

  8. Matter of Duell v. Condon

    84 N.Y.2d 773 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 106 times
    In Duell, the landlord argued that the underlying eviction proceeding fell outside the scope of Real Property Law § 234 because the proceeding was based on the tenant's failure to occupy the premises as a primary residence, a requirement mandated by law, not by the terms of the lease.

  9. Milliken v. United States

    283 U.S. 15 (1931)   Cited 207 times
    Upholding retroactive application of federal estate tax statute to tax gifts made prior to enactment of the statute

  10. Mtr. of OnBank Trust Co.

    90 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 81 times
    Finding that a portion of Banking Law § 100–c would be meaningless if applied prospectively only, given the statute's reference to EPTL § 11–2.2(b), which contains a specific date, thus warranting a retroactive application of the statute

  11. Section 11.9 - Revocation of certification

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 5 § 11.9   Cited 15 times

    (a) The commissioner may revoke the certification of a business enterprise upon a finding of any one of the following: (1) the business enterprise made material misrepresentations of fact on its application for certification or on a business annual report, or the business enterprise failed to disclose facts in its application for certification that would constitute grounds for not issuing a certification; (2) the business enterprise has failed to construct, expand, rehabilitate, invest in or operate