Braxton v. Smolinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braxton v. Smolinski

89 A.D.2d 1053, 454 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18333

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

DecidedSeptember 1, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 1053 (Braxton v. Smolinski) 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

Braxton v. Smolinski, 89 A.D.2d 1053, 454 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Special Term dismissing the petition to validate the designating petition of petitioner candidate on the ground that it failed to specify the date of the primary election. The petition was properly dismissed since the date of the primary election is specifically prescribed by subdivision 1 of section 6-132 of the Election Law and strict compliance with the content provisions of the statute is required (Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772, 774; Matter of Alamo v Black, 51 NY2d 716). Insofar as our decision in Matter of Lloyd v Power (37 AD2d 792) holds otherwise, we note that case was decided before enactment of the present statute. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Green, J. —- Election Law.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Special Term dismissing the petition to validate the designating petition of petitioner candidate on the ground that it failed to specify the date of the primary election. The petition was properly dismissed since the date of the primary election is specifically prescribed by subdivision 1 of section 6-132 of the Election Law and strict compliance with the content provisions of the statute is required (Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772, 774; Matter of Alamo v Black, 51 NY2d 716). Insofar as our decision in Matter of Lloyd v Power (37 AD2d 792) holds otherwise, we note that case was decided before enactment of the present statute. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Green, J. —- Election Law.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Denman, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 1053, 454 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braxton-v-smolinski-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack