22 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Kelly v. Safir

    96 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 361 times
    In Kelly, the Court of Appeals addressed the narrow scope of judicial review of penalties imposed after administrative hearings in two consolidated article 78 proceedings.
  2. Stewart v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

    81 N.Y.2d 203 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that service under the "last known address" option, was not correctly utilized because plaintiffs "sent the copy of the process to VOA at its office in New Jersey `on behalf of VWAG because that was not VWAG's `last known address,' as prescribed and contemplated by the statute, even if VOA is a mere department of VWAG"
  3. 72A Realty Associates v. New York City Environmental Control Board

    275 A.D.2d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 57 times

    August 31, 2000. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered May 26, 1999, which, as limited by petitioner's brief, dismissed its petition to annul the determination of respondents Environmental Control Board, Department of Sanitation and Department of Finance, which, upon a finding that service was properly effected upon petitioner, sustained the notice of violation, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted and the determination annulled. Arthur

  4. Eight Associates v. Hynes

    102 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 71 times
    In Hynes, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court discussed whether a single knock at the residence of a tenant constituted a "reasonable application" such that service by posting and mailing could be made under N.Y. Real Property Actions & Proceedings Law § 735 (McKinney 1980).
  5. Eight Associates v. Hynes

    65 N.Y.2d 739 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 67 times

    Argued May 2, 1985 Decided June 6, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Antonio I. Brandveen, J. Jeffrey R. Metz and Robert D. Goldstein for appellant. Spiros A. Tsimbinos for respondent. Gary M. Rosenberg and Luise A. Barack for Community Housing Improvement Program, Inc., amicus curiae. Kalman Finkel, John E. Kirklin, Scott A. Rosenberg, David W. Wechsler and Thomas P. Kerrigan for The Legal Aid Society of New York, amicus curiae. Andrew

  6. In the Matter of Rocco v. Kelly

    20 A.D.3d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 32 times
    In Rocco v. Kelly, 20 A.D.3d 364, 365-366, (1st Dept. 2005), the First Department stated the well settled principle that, "[a] CPLR article 78 proceeding against a public body must be commenced within four months `after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding on the petitioner.'" (citation omitted).
  7. Wilner v. Beddoe

    102 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 17 times
    In Wilmer, the court held that service of process was insufficient after the ECB failed to make a “reasonable attempt” at personal service.
  8. Johnson v. Waters

    291 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 28 times
    Emphasizing an attempt at service on a Saturday in finding due diligence
  9. In re of Feldman v. New York State Teachers'

    14 A.D.3d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 18 times

    96150 January 6, 2005. Peters, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Clemente, J.), entered January 14, 2004 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition. Before: Mercure, J.P., Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Petitioner was hired by respondent in October 2001 as a senior computer programmer analyst. Upon the completion of his initial probationary period, his probation was extended, during which he received negative

  10. State v. Mappa

    78 A.D.3d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 12 times

    No. 2010-03600. November 16, 2010. In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Social Services Law § 461-f (5) to recover an operating deficit incurred by a receiver, the defendant Baruch Mappa appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 28, 2010, as denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him. O'Connell and Aronowitz, Albany, N.Y

  11. Section 500.1 - General requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1   Cited 1 times

    (a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation