Amer v. Previte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amer v. Previte

51 A.D.2d 949, 381 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11651

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 23, 1976·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 22, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The challenge to the report of the Referee below as made to Justice Helman cannot be sustained. Section 405 of the Election Law is not self-executing and cancellation under this statute is not automatic. The Board of Elections is required to follow a certain procedure as specified by subdivisions 2 through 7, inclusive, of section 405, in order to cancel the registration of a voter thereunder. Petitioner, carrying the burden of proof, has failed to make an adequate showing that in the 80 instances here involved, the registration of such voters actually had been cancelled at the time said voters’ signatures were obtained (Matter of Celler v Larkin, 71 Misc 2d 17). The finding by the Referee that the signatures were obtained lawfully is supported by the credible evidence. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered March 22, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The challenge to the report of the Referee below as made to Justice Helman cannot be sustained. Section 405 of the Election Law is not self-executing and cancellation under this statute is not automatic. The Board of Elections is required to follow a certain procedure as specified by subdivisions 2 through 7, inclusive, of section 405, in order to cancel the registration of a voter thereunder. Petitioner, carrying the burden of proof, has failed to make an adequate showing that in the 80 instances here involved, the registration of such voters actually had been cancelled at the time said voters’ signatures were obtained (Matter of Celler v Larkin, 71 Misc 2d 17). The finding by the Referee that the signatures were obtained lawfully is supported by the credible evidence. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ.

Amer v. Previte, 51 A.D.2d 949, 381 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

51 A.D.2d 949 (Amer v. Previte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related