Brownson v. Andrews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brownson v. Andrews

244 A.D.2d 896, 667 N.Y.S.2d 958

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 896 (Brownson v. Andrews) 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

Brownson v. Andrews, 244 A.D.2d 896, 667 N.Y.S.2d 958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the petition challenging three write-in ballots cast in favor of respondent Russell Andrews. Election Law § 8-308 (3) “mandates, in clear and unequivocal terms, that ‘[a] write-in ballot must be cast in its appropriate place on the machine, or it shall be void and not counted’ ” (Matter of Haynie v Mahoney, 48 NY2d 718, 719). Although the challenged ballots were cast in column four as opposed to column three, the court permissibly found that under the circumstances the three write-in ballots were cast in the appropriate place on the machine (see, Matter of Daly v Jayne, 233 AD2d 960; Matter of Pauly v Mahoney, 49 AD2d 1014, lv denied 37 NY2d 711, appeal dismissed 37 NY2d 887). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.—Election Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the petition challenging three write-in ballots cast in favor of respondent Russell Andrews. Election Law § 8-308 (3) “mandates, in clear and unequivocal terms, that ‘[a] write-in ballot must be cast in its appropriate place on the machine, or it shall be void and not counted’ ” (Matter of Haynie v Mahoney, 48 NY2d 718, 719). Although the challenged ballots were cast in column four as opposed to column three, the court permissibly found that under the circumstances the three write-in ballots were cast in the appropriate place on the machine (see, Matter of Daly v Jayne, 233 AD2d 960; Matter of Pauly v Mahoney, 49 AD2d 1014, lv denied 37 NY2d 711, appeal dismissed 37 NY2d 887). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hurlbutt, J.—Election Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 896, 667 N.Y.S.2d 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brownson-v-andrews-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack