Barret v. Scaringe

65 N.Y. 946
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 28, 1985
StatusPublished

This text of 65 N.Y. 946 (Barret v. Scaringe) 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
Barret v. Scaringe, 65 N.Y. 946 (N.Y. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Divisions should be affirmed, without costs.

The common issue presented by these four appeals is whether the designating petition of a candidate, seeking party nomination for public office, should be invalidated on the ground that the petition cover sheet slightly understated the total number of [949]*949signatures actually contained in the petition. This court, under circumstances closely analogous to those herein presented, has held an understatement of signatures to have constituted an inconsequential error which did not warrant invalidation of the designating petition. (Matter of Jonas v Black, 63 NY2d 685, affg 104 AD2d 466.) Accordingly, the petitions herein at issue satisfy the requirements of Election Law § 6-134 (2). (See, Matter of Garrett v Alter, 65 NY2d 529.)

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

In each case: Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

MATTER OF JONAS v. Black
468 N.E.2d 1116 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
Jonas v. Black
104 A.D.2d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.Y. 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barret-v-scaringe-ny-1985.