Bayne v. Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bayne v. Board of Elections

58 A.D.2d 863

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 863 (Bayne v. Board of Elections) 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

Bayne v. Board of Elections, 58 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding, inter alia, to enjoin the respondent Board of Elections from declaring certain write-in ballots invalid, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 31, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioners’ application to validate the write-in adhesive stickers employed on their behalves was properly denied (see Election Law, §437; Education Law, § 2590-c, subd 6, par [7]; Matter of Brennan v Power, 11 Mise 2d 305). We also find no merit to the claim concerning the counting of valid write-in votes. Petitioners also complain of inadequate time to respond to the opposing affirmation. They proceeded by order to show cause and made no request to reply at the end of oral argument. Reversal is not indicated on this ground. Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding, inter alia, to enjoin the respondent Board of Elections from declaring certain write-in ballots invalid, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 31, 1977, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioners’ application to validate the write-in adhesive stickers employed on their behalves was properly denied (see Election Law, §437; Education Law, § 2590-c, subd 6, par [7]; Matter of Brennan v Power, 11 Mise 2d 305). We also find no merit to the claim concerning the counting of valid write-in votes. Petitioners also complain of inadequate time to respond to the opposing affirmation. They proceeded by order to show cause and made no request to reply at the end of oral argument. Reversal is not indicated on this ground. Latham, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bayne-v-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-1977.