Bright v. Siebert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bright v. Siebert

70 A.D.2d 816, 417 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12366

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

DecidedJune 14, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 816 (Bright v. Siebert) 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

Bright v. Siebert, 70 A.D.2d 816, 417 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 30, 1979, unanimously modified, on the law, to delete from the second decretal paragraph the words "as a constitutional deprivation of due process”, and the words "it is further” in the third decretal paragraph and the entire fourth decretal paragraph, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. We agree with the conclusion reached by Special Term. However, we would bottom the result on the action of the superintendent in first including petitioners among the class eligible to be candidates for election and then, somewhat more than two and one-half months later, virtually on the eve of the date fixed for the filing of petitions, disqualifying them. Such action was arbitrary and capricious and makes unnecessary any consideration of constitutional questions at this time. Concur — Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom, Markewich and Ross, JJ. [98 Mise 2d 566.]

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 30, 1979, unanimously modified, on the law, to delete from the second decretal paragraph the words "as a constitutional deprivation of due process”, and the words "it is further” in the third decretal paragraph and the entire fourth decretal paragraph, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. We agree with the conclusion reached by Special Term. However, we would bottom the result on the action of the superintendent in first including petitioners among the class eligible to be candidates for election and then, somewhat more than two and one-half months later, virtually on the eve of the date fixed for the filing of petitions, disqualifying them. Such action was arbitrary and capricious and makes unnecessary any consideration of constitutional questions at this time. Concur — Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom, Markewich and Ross, JJ. [98 Mise 2d 566.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 816, 417 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bright-v-siebert-nyappdiv-1979.