Alper v. Hayduk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alper v. Hayduk

64 A.D.2d 934, 408 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12833

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

DecidedAugust 24, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 934 (Alper v. Hayduk) 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

Alper v. Hayduk, 64 A.D.2d 934, 408 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to validate the petition designating Seymour Alper as a candidate in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1978, for the public office of State Senator from the 37th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 17, 1978, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While we do not agree with the reasons given by Special Term in rejecting the appellant’s petition, we do find that the petition was insufficient, as a matter of law, for the reasons set forth in Matter of Neuberger v Anderson, (64 AD2d 933). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to validate the petition designating Seymour Alper as a candidate in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1978, for the public office of State Senator from the 37th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 17, 1978, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While we do not agree with the reasons given by Special Term in rejecting the appellant’s petition, we do find that the petition was insufficient, as a matter of law, for the reasons set forth in Matter of Neuberger v Anderson, (64 AD2d 933). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 934, 408 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alper-v-hayduk-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack