New York Court of Appeals, 1973

Matter of Bd. of Trs. of Common Sch. Dist. No. 2 of the Town of Dickinson v. Comm'r of Educ. of the State of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 3, 1973 · Fuld and Judges Burke, Breitel, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler Concur in Memorandum

33 N.Y.2d 601; 347 N.Y.S.2d 569; 301 N.E.2d 541; 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1088

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Long Island Citizens Campaign, Inc. v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Ruffin v. LION CORP. & C. (N.Y. 2010)
Long Island Teen Challenge, Inc. v. Town of Coeymans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
De Russo v. City of Albany Board of Zoning Appeals (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Brock v. Bua (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Stockwicz v. Corning Community College (New York Supreme Court 1977)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The State Education Department, its governing body, the Board of Regents, the Committee of Regents, designated ad hoc as provided by law, and the Commissioner of Education are integrally related (Education Law, § 101). Indeed, it is doubtful but not necessary to decide whether the Committee of Regents was a continuing or suable entity separate from the larger Board of Regents. Under these circumstances, and because the notice and petition served on the Commissioner of Education as the chief administrative officer of the department were completely informative of the party or parties involved as respondents and the issues at stake, the Appellate Division was eminently correct in ignoring technical deficiencies, none of which were serious or prejudicial, in concluding that there had been adequate service, notice, and presence of necessary parties. Modern jurisprudence generally and CPLR 2001 specifically direct a recognition of realities and the needs of justice and the ignoring of technical deficiencies.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Breitel, Jasen, GabrieliíI, Jones and Wachtler concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.