November 2009

Matter of Michael Mimassi v Town of Whitestown Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 proceeding to challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition to review a determination of the Whitestown Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Petitioner purchased property in the Town of Whitestown that included a farmhouse that

Matter of Craig Emmerling and Lynn Emmerling v Town of Richmon Zoning Board of Appeals

This article 78 appeal was brought about to challenge a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition. Petitioners commenced an article 78 appeal to reverse the determination of the Town of Richmond Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that required

Matter of Bruce Harris v Department of Education of the City of New York

In this Article 78 appeal case, petitioner sought to challenge respondents’ determination terminating petitioner’s employment as a New York City school teacher and to gain reinstatement of his employment with back pay and benefits. After a hearing, petitioner, a tenured teacher

Matter of John Welsh v New York State Comptroller

Petitioner commenced this Article 78 appeal to review a determination of respondent Comptroller denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner, a Suffolk County police officer, was injured by an emotionally disturbed man whom he was escorting to a hospital psych ward. Following the attack

Matter of Anna Wei v Planning Board of Town/Village of Harrison

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 appeal to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Town/Village of Harrison denying her application to subdivide her property. The neighboring landlords then appealed from a decision of the Court which annulled the determination and remitted

Matter of McCrory v Village of Scarsdale

Petitioner brought about this Article 78 appeal to review an order granting a motion by the Village of Scarsdale to dismiss her petition as time-barred. Petitioner sought to compel the Village to disclose certain records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law. The Court felt that the original