43 Cited authorities

  1. Parochial v. Board of Educ

    60 N.Y.2d 539 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 705 times
    Holding that § 3813's notice of claim requirement "is not satisfied by presentment to any other individual or body"
  2. Jamindar v. Uniondale Union Free Sch. Dist.

    90 A.D.3d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 83 times

    2011-12-6 Jigar JAMINDAR, appellant-respondent, v. UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants,Irwin Contracting, Inc., et al., defendants-respondents-appellants;Herrick's Mechanical Corporation, third-party defendant-respondent-appellant. Kramer & Pollack, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Larry Kramer of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Kathleen A. Foley of counsel)

  3. Mills v. County of Monroe

    59 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 171 times
    Holding that "actions that are brought to protect an important right, which seek relief for a similarly situated class of the public, and whose resolution would directly affect the rights of that class or group are deserving" of waiving notice
  4. Kahn v. New York City Dep't of Educ.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1098 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 56 times

    2012-02-14 Leslie KAHN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al., Respondents.In the Matter of Doreen Nash, Appellant, v. The Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York et al., Respondents. New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City (Adriana Piñon and Arthur Eisenberg of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Julian L. Kalkstein and Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel)

  5. Union Sch. Dist v. Human Appeal Bd.

    320 N.E.2d 859 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that actions or proceedings which seek only enforcement of private rights and duties are subject to the notice-of-claim provisions against school district while such provisions are not applicable to actions seeking to vindicate a public interest
  6. First Int. Bank v. Blankstein

    59 N.Y.2d 436 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 119 times
    Holding that parol evidence is "clearly admissible" to establish that a party who took an instrument that was clear on its face did not take the instrument for value, in good faith, or without notice
  7. McManus v. Board of Educ

    87 N.Y.2d 183 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 49 times
    In McManus, while not disturbing its prior holding in Roberts that "Jarema" credit did not apply to administrative or supervisory personnel, the New York Court of Appeals distinguished between cases where an administrator filled a vacant position, and cases where the administrator merely acted as a substitute, by "taking over a position on behalf of another who is either temporarily unable to perform the duties on a short-term basis because of sickness, leave of absence or similar reasons."
  8. Cayuga-Onondaga Bd. v. Sweeney

    676 N.E.2d 854 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 36 times
    Discussing briefly the legislative history of § 220 and the prevailing wage constitutional amendment
  9. Opalinski v. City of N.Y.

    110 A.D.3d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    2013-10-2 Witold OPALINSKI, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents. Lipsig Shapey Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Kenneth J. Gorman], of counsel), for appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Debra A. Adler and Mathew P. Ross of counsel), for respondents. WILLIAM F. MASTRO Lipsig Shapey Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac and Kenneth J

  10. In the Matter of Sharpe v. Sturm

    28 A.D.3d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    In Sharpe v. Sturm, a case cited by the City Defendants, the New York Appellate Division held that a failure to comply with the notice provision of Public Officers Law § 18 should not result in the denial of a motion to compel a defense where the municipality is also a defendant in the same lawsuit.
  11. Section 50-E - Notice of claim

    N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-E   Cited 4,133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the required contents of the notice of claim and the procedure for serving the notice of claim upon an officer, appointee or employee of a public corporation
  12. Section 3813 - Presentation of claims against the governing body of any school district or certain state supported schools

    N.Y. Educ. Law § 3813   Cited 839 times
    Requiring service of a notice of claim on the "governing body of district or school" subject to the action
  13. Section 7806 - Judgment

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7806   Cited 346 times

    The judgment may grant the petitioner the relief to which he is entitled, or may dismiss the proceeding either on the merits or with leave to renew. If the proceeding was brought to review a determination, the judgment may annul or confirm the determination in whole or in part, or modify it, and may direct or prohibit specified action by the respondent. Any restitution or damages granted to the petitioner must be incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, and must be such as he might

  14. Section 3012-C - Annual professional performance review of classroom teachers and building principals

    N.Y. Educ. Law § 3012-C   Cited 37 times

    1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the annual professional performance reviews of all classroom teachers and building principals employed by school districts or boards of cooperative educational services shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section. Such performance reviews which are conducted on or after July first, two thousand eleven, or on or after the date specified in paragraph c of subdivision two of this section where

  15. Section 100.2 - [Effective 4/16/2021]General school requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 100.2   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting a school's code of conduct to set “a minimum suspension period, for any student who repeatedly is substantially disruptive of the educational process or substantially interferes with the teacher's authority over the classroom, provided that the suspending authority may reduce such period on a case-by-case basis to be consistent with any other State and Federal Law”