Butler v. Mavromatis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butler v. Mavromatis

185 A.D.2d 954, 587 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118

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

DecidedAugust 25, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 185 A.D.2d 954 (Butler v. Mavromatis) 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

Butler v. Mavromatis, 185 A.D.2d 954, 587 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Archie Mavromatis as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1992, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly for the 36th District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), dated August 18, 1992, which, after a hearing, granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to restore the name of Archie Mavromatis to the appropriate ballot.

We find that the actions of the appellant were not sufficient [955]*955to warrant the conclusion that the designating petition process was permeated with fraud (see, Matter of Ruiz v McKenna, 40 NY2d 815, 816). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Archie Mavromatis as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1992, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly for the 36th District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), dated August 18, 1992, which, after a hearing, granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to restore the name of Archie Mavromatis to the appropriate ballot.

We find that the actions of the appellant were not sufficient [955]*955to warrant the conclusion that the designating petition process was permeated with fraud (see, Matter of Ruiz v McKenna, 40 NY2d 815, 816). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 954, 587 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-mavromatis-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack