Daniel J. Rice, Inc. v. Board of Education

In our opinion, there was a substantial factual basis for the making of the subject resolution (cf. Matter of Caristo Constr. Corp. v. Rubin, supra; Matter of Kayfield Constr. Corp. v. Morris, 15 A D 2d 373), hence the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Education (Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd., 1 N Y 2d 508, 520). No issues of fact were considered. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.