§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Colin Realty Co., LLC, Appellant,v.Town of North Hempstead, et al., Respondents.

Brief

31 Cited authorities

  1. Pell v. Board of Education

    34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 5,556 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

  2. People v. Rudolph

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4840 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 422 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Rudolph, the New York Court of Appeals held that per CPL § 720.20(1), where a defendant is eligible to be treated as a youthful offender, per state law, the sentencing court “must” determine whether he or she is to be so treated and that compliance with this statutory compliance cannot be dispensed, even where the defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.

  3. In the Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle

    24 A.D.3d 768 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 442 times
    In Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 809 NYS2d 98 (2d Dept 2005), the court held that a "substantial evidence" question arises "only where a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing has been held."

  4. Matter of Sasso v. Osgood

    86 N.Y.2d 374 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 515 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reversing and granting Article 78 petition to annul zoning board decision

  5. People v. Bing

    76 N.Y.2d 331 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 310 times
    In Bing, the New York Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant, who had been represented by counsel on prior pending unrelated charges, was not deprived of the right to counsel under the State Constitution where, in the absence of counsel, the defendant waived his or her Miranda rights and made statements in response to police questioning on matters unrelated to the prior pending charge.

  6. People v. Hobson

    39 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 458 times
    Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation

  7. Tall Trees Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

    97 N.Y.2d 86 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Tall Trees Construction Corp., though, the court held that because the Board did not have to make any findings of fact, the court's appellate review was not limited to such findings when deciding whether the procedural dismissal was arbitrary or capricious.

  8. People v. Taylor

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7911 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 80 times
    Describing defendant's murder of five employees of fast-food restaurant in course of robbery

  9. Fayetteville v. Jarrold

    53 N.Y.2d 254 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 120 times

    Argued May 5, 1981 Decided June 16, 1981 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, EDWARD F. McLAUGHLIN, J. John C. Setright for appellants. James F. Dwyer for Village Board of Village of Fayetteville, respondent. Chief Judge COOKE. Dispositive on this appeal is the well-established rule that a landowner who seeks a use variance must demonstrate factually, by dollars and cents proof, an inability to realize a reasonable return under existing permissible

  10. Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany

    28 N.Y.2d 449 (N.Y. 1971)   Cited 125 times
    In Overhill, a four-story building, located in a Business A district in the Village of Scarsdale, was completed in early 1955 as part of a combination office and apartment structure.