Barber v. Mahoney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barber v. Mahoney

151 A.D.2d 1040, 544 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8401

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

DecidedJune 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 1040 (Barber v. Mahoney) 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

Barber v. Mahoney, 151 A.D.2d 1040, 544 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We conclude that the manner of service as provided in the order to show cause was reasonably calculated under all of the circumstances to apprise the respondent of the pendency of the proceeding and afford her the opportunity to present her objections (see, Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314; Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar v County of Sullivan, 59 NY2d 418, 423). Respondent may not contest the court’s jurisdiction over the Board of Elections where the [1041]*1041Board appeared on the return date and has raised no objection (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; [e]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — Election Law). Present— Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Apr. 26,1989.)

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We conclude that the manner of service as provided in the order to show cause was reasonably calculated under all of the circumstances to apprise the respondent of the pendency of the proceeding and afford her the opportunity to present her objections (see, Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314; Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar v County of Sullivan, 59 NY2d 418, 423). Respondent may not contest the court’s jurisdiction over the Board of Elections where the [1041]*1041Board appeared on the return date and has raised no objection (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; [e]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — Election Law). Present— Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Apr. 26,1989.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 1040, 544 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-mahoney-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack