Berkowitz v. Harrington

307 A.D.2d 1002, 763 N.Y.S.2d 513
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 20, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 1002 (Berkowitz v. Harrington) 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
Berkowitz v. Harrington, 307 A.D.2d 1002, 763 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Patricia A. Harrington as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2003, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Town Receiver of Taxes, Town of North Hempstead, Patricia A. Harrington appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), dated August 13, 2003, which granted the petition and invalidated the designating petition.

[1003]*1003Ordered that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Nassau County Board of Elections is directed to place the name of Patricia A. Harrington on the appropriate ballot.

The issue on this appeal is whether the Election Law requires the disqualification of signatures on a designating petition when the subscribing witness fails to include the name of the town or city, and the county, in which he or she resides, under the “Witness Identification Information” section. We conclude that the failure of the subscribing witness to include the town or city, and the county, in the “Witness Identification Information” section of the petition is insufficient, in and of itself, to warrant invalidation of the petition, particularly where, as here, the complete address of the subscribing witness appears elsewhere on the same page of the petition (see Matter of Barrett v Brodsky, 196 AD2d 603 [1993]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of McCrory v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections
2023 NY Slip Op 02582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
DeStefano v. Borkowski
57 Misc. 3d 498 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)
MatterofCollinsvNewYorkStateBoardofElections
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Collins v. New York State Board of Elections
120 A.D.3d 882 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Scaturro v. Maloney
76 A.D.2d 688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Arcuri v. Hojnacki
32 A.D.3d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Stark v. Kelleher
32 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Galante v. Ferrara
307 A.D.2d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
307 A.D.2d 1002, 763 N.Y.S.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-harrington-nyappdiv-2003.