§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of WL, LLC, Respondent-Appellant,v.Department of Economic Development, Also Known as Empire State Development, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Brief

25 Cited authorities

  1. Memphis Light, Gas Water Div. v. Craft

    436 U.S. 1 (1978)   Cited 1,344 times
    Holding that notice that a utility bill was overdue and that service would be disconnected unless payment was made by a certain date violated due process because it "[d]id not advise the customer of the availability of a procedure for protesting a proposed termination of utility service as unjustified"

  2. Kurcsics v. Merchants Mut

    49 N.Y.2d 451 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 618 times
    In Kurcsics, the court construed the phrase "first party benefits", contained in section 671 of the Insurance Law, as it related to no-fault insurance protection.

  3. Pajak v. Pajak

    56 N.Y.2d 394 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 173 times
    In Pajak v. Pajak, 56 N.Y.2d 394, a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband commenced an action for divorce on cruel and inhumane treatment grounds.

  4. GE CAPITAL v. TAX APPEALS DIV

    2 N.Y.3d 249 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 86 times
    Observing that because “[t]hird-party finance companies do not carry the burden of collecting sales taxes as a trustee of the State,” it was not arbitrary or capricious for Tax Commission to preclude third parties from pursuing refund claims pertaining to uncollectible debts

  5. In the Matter of Gable Transport v. State

    29 A.D.3d 1125 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 65 times

    99221. May 11, 2006. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered January 19, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to, inter alia, review a determination of the Department of Transportation denying petitioner's application for a divisible load overweight permit. Darrell W. Harp, Clifton Park, for appellant. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Edward Lindner

  6. Auerbach v. Board of Educ

    86 N.Y.2d 198 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 54 times

    Argued June 6, 1995 Decided June 29, 1995 Appeal from the Board of Education of the City of School District of the City of New York. Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (John Hogrogian and Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel), for appellants in the first, second and third above-entitled proceedings. Bruce K. Bryant, Brooklyn, for respondents in the first and second above-entitled proceedings. Pryor, Cashman, Sherman Flynn, New York City (Ronald H. Shechtman and Tina C. Kremenezky of

  7. Weingarten v. Board of Trustees

    98 N.Y.2d 575 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 33 times

    No. 113 Argued September 5, 2002. Decided October 22, 2002. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered November 8, 2001, which affirmed an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment to declare that defendants' failure to include "per session" compensation in the computation of teachers' retirement

  8. St. Clair Nation v. City of New York

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3471 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 14 times

    No. 63. Argued March 22, 2010. decided April 29, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered March 10, 2009, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division by order of the Supreme Court, entered in New York County). The Appellate Division judgment, insofar as appealed from, modified, on the law, a determination of respondent

  9. James Square Associates LP v. Mullen

    91 A.D.3d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    In James Square Associates, LP v Mullen (91 AD3d 164 [4th Dept., 2011]) the Court affirmed the decision of Justice Cherundolo, not on the absence of legislative intent to make the revocation of Empire Zone certificates retroactive, but rather on substantive due process grounds.

  10. Mrozinski v. St. John

    304 A.D.2d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 15 times

    92792 April 10, 2003. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Reilly Jr., J.), entered August 15, 2002 in Schenectady County, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Harding Law Firm, Glenville (Christopher Guett of counsel), for appellants. Maynard, O'Connor, Smith Catalinotto, Albany (Anne-Jo Pennock McTague of counsel), for respondent. Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and, Kane, JJ. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Cardona, P.J. Plaintiff

  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