Home/New York Court of Appeals/Bruno v. Peyser

Bruno v. Peyser

355 N.E.2d 792, 40 N.Y.2d 827, 387 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3002
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 9, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 355 N.E.2d 792 (Bruno v. Peyser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruno v. Peyser, 355 N.E.2d 792, 40 N.Y.2d 827, 387 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3002 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Memorandum. Since the order appealed from is in form a reversal, but in fact affirmed the order and judgment of Special Term, leave to appeal is granted by this court sua sponte.

The petitioner, Richard Bruno, instituted this proceeding to contest the election petition of Peter Peyser, a candidate for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate. The respondent did not actually receive the mailed service of process until after the expiration of the 14-day limitation period imposed by subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law. Hence, this proceeding was not timely. (Matter of Burton v Coveney, 32 NY2d 842; Matter of Thompson v Board of Elections, 40 NY2d 814 [decided Sept. 2, 1976].) Matter of Pell v Coveney (37 NY2d 494), relied upon by petitioner, has no application where it is the objector, and not the candidate, who receives notice of an adverse Board of Elections decision after the expiration of the 14-day period. Objectors, unlike candidates, have sufficient knowledge and information regarding the nature of the objections in order to enable them to commence a timely proceeding to invalidate designating petitions without the need to await a determination of the Boárd of Elections. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Appeal taken as of right dismissed, without costs.

Leave to appeal granted by the court sua sponte.

Order affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Nowinski v. New York City Bd. of Elections
2018 NY Slip Op 5809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Wilson v. Garfinkle
5 A.D.3d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Sirignano v. Sunderland
196 Misc. 2d 831 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Dwyer v. Barasch
176 A.D.2d 1067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Keal v. Board of Elections
164 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Krupczak v. Mancini
153 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Augustine v. D'Apice
153 A.D.2d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Zaretski v. Tutunjian
133 A.D.2d 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Visconti v. Paino
137 Misc. 2d 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1987)
Schneeberg v. New York State Board of Elections
78 A.D.2d 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Gartner v. Salerno
74 A.D.2d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
MATTER OF THOMPSON v. Wallace
381 N.E.2d 164 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Thompson v. Wallace
64 A.D.2d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Garrow v. May
54 A.D.2d 781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
355 N.E.2d 792, 40 N.Y.2d 827, 387 N.Y.S.2d 563, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruno-v-peyser-ny-1976.