Altimari v. Meisser

New York Court of Appeals

Altimari v. Meisser

204 N.E.2d 332, 15 N.Y.2d 686, 256 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1687

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 7, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 204 N.E.2d 332 (Altimari v. Meisser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altimari v. Meisser, 204 N.E.2d 332, 15 N.Y.2d 686, 256 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1687 (N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with the Appellate Division as to the disposition of ballot No. 32-1. We disagree -with the Appellate Division as to ballots Nos. 14-2, 36-1 and 118-3, and we hold those numbered ballots to be' valid. We disagree with the Appellate Division as to ballot No. 92-1 and hold that ballot invalid. Up to this point there would be a majority of two votes for candidate Altimari. Ballots Nos. 33-1, 33-2 and 33-3 were not opened or considered prior to the receipt of the ballots by us but we have now opened those numbered ballots to see whether the voters had voted for this office. Two of them did so vote. We hold that the grounds on which the Election Inspectors [688]*688refused to open these ballots were insufficient (N. Y. Const., art. II, § 4; Election Law, § 151). In view of the limitation of our jurisdiction, however, we remit the proceeding to Special Term to pass in the first instance on the validity of the two ballots numbered 33-1 and 33-2.

Concur: Chief Judge. Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bebdan.

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

Order modified, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with the Appellate Division as to the disposition of ballot No. 32-1. We disagree -with the Appellate Division as to ballots Nos. 14-2, 36-1 and 118-3, and we hold those numbered ballots to be' valid. We disagree with the Appellate Division as to ballot No. 92-1 and hold that ballot invalid. Up to this point there would be a majority of two votes for candidate Altimari. Ballots Nos. 33-1, 33-2 and 33-3 were not opened or considered prior to the receipt of the ballots by us but we have now opened those numbered ballots to see whether the voters had voted for this office. Two of them did so vote. We hold that the grounds on which the Election Inspectors [688]*688refused to open these ballots were insufficient (N. Y. Const., art. II, § 4; Election Law, § 151). In view of the limitation of our jurisdiction, however, we remit the proceeding to Special Term to pass in the first instance on the validity of the two ballots numbered 33-1 and 33-2.

Concur: Chief Judge. Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Scileppi and Bebdan.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 N.E.2d 332, 15 N.Y.2d 686, 256 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altimari-v-meisser-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack