provided: No collateral, estoppel or res judicata effect of Grievance Procedure decisions and findings shall apply in such de novo judicial trial or other judicial proceedings. 148 Misc.2d 709, 710-11, 568 N.Y.S.2d 258, 258-59 (NY.App.Term 1990). Similarly, in Municipal Housing Authority for the City of Yonkers v. Jones, the Appellate Term held that, despite that fact that the housing authority’s termination decision was made following a full administrative hearing, the court in the summary holdover proceeding was required to conduct a trial de novo, as opposed to the limited due process review. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the language in § 966.57(c) from that of the housing aut sc.3d 135(A), 791 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Table), 2004 WL 1620868 (NY.App.Term 2004) (<HOLDING>). However, unlike the grievance procedures in
holding that requiring a permit and the restoration of the land after the mining operations had concluded did not preempt federal law however the court did recognize that where a state regulation rendered it impossible to exercise a right granted through federal legislation that state regulation would be in conflict with the federal right holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo holding that presumption of vindictiveness is inapplicable in a system which gave a convicted defendant the right to a trial de novo in another court holding that the court need not here decide whether the federal regulation creates a right to a trial de novo where none is elsewhere granted or merely preserves such rights if elsewhere granted since we find the regulation to be inapplicable to the case at bar