Brinkerhoff v. Mahoney

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

This text of 97 A.D.2d 981 (Brinkerhoff v. Mahoney) 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
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).

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

Related

MATTER OF ENGERT v. McNab
454 N.E.2d 535 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A.D.2d 981, 468 N.Y.S.2d 779, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinkerhoff-v-mahoney-nyappdiv-1983.