Brinkerhoff v. Mahoney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brinkerhoff v. Mahoney

97 A.D.2d 981, 468 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20834

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 4, 1983·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The cover sheet of [982]*982petitioner’s nominating petition contains all the information prescribed by subdivision 2 of section 6-134 of the Election Law. Since the information which respondent claims was improperly omitted is not statutorily required, the motion to validate was properly granted (see Election Law, § 6-138, subd 2; cf. Matter of Engert v McNab, 60 NY2d 607). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J. — Election Law.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ. (Order entered Oct. 18, 1983.)

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The cover sheet of [982]*982petitioner’s nominating petition contains all the information prescribed by subdivision 2 of section 6-134 of the Election Law. Since the information which respondent claims was improperly omitted is not statutorily required, the motion to validate was properly granted (see Election Law, § 6-138, subd 2; cf. Matter of Engert v McNab, 60 NY2d 607). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J. — Election Law.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ. (Order entered Oct. 18, 1983.)

Brinkerhoff v. Mahoney, 97 A.D.2d 981, 468 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

97 A.D.2d 981 (Brinkerhoff v. Mahoney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related