Acito v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acito v. Power

17 A.D.2d 710, 231 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8440

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 28, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 710 (Acito v. Power) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acito v. Power, 17 A.D.2d 710, 231 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on August 24, 1962, modified on the law and facts to the extent of validating the petition with respect to Election Districts 9, 11, 27 and 39 in the 11th Assembly District, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs. The objection that the subscribing witness failed to designate correctly the election district in which he resides is immaterial (Matter of Stapleton, 257 App. Div. 1072; Matter of Crosbie v. Cohen, 258 App. Div. 738). Nor does the amendment of the statute subsequent to these cases require a different conclusion. The amendment evidences no legislative intention to change the effect of these decisions. The further objection, directed to the 27th Election District with respect to the correction of the number of the Assembly District, cannot be sustained. Such correction may be disregarded in the light of the fact that the address given by the subscribing witness, coupled with the proper election district, clearly indicates that he resides in the 11th Assembly District. In the circumstances no prejudice resulted and no one could have been misled. Motion to dispense with printing granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order entered on August 24, 1962, modified on the law and facts to the extent of validating the petition with respect to Election Districts 9, 11, 27 and 39 in the 11th Assembly District, and as thus modified affirmed, without costs. The objection that the subscribing witness failed to designate correctly the election district in which he resides is immaterial (Matter of Stapleton, 257 App. Div. 1072; Matter of Crosbie v. Cohen, 258 App. Div. 738). Nor does the amendment of the statute subsequent to these cases require a different conclusion. The amendment evidences no legislative intention to change the effect of these decisions. The further objection, directed to the 27th Election District with respect to the correction of the number of the Assembly District, cannot be sustained. Such correction may be disregarded in the light of the fact that the address given by the subscribing witness, coupled with the proper election district, clearly indicates that he resides in the 11th Assembly District. In the circumstances no prejudice resulted and no one could have been misled. Motion to dispense with printing granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 710, 231 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acito-v-power-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack