Calise v. Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calise v. Board of Elections

1 A.D.2d 492, 151 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5411

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

DecidedMay 11, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 492 (Calise v. Board of Elections) 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

Calise v. Board of Elections, 1 A.D.2d 492, 151 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think that it was within the power of the Supreme Court to issue the order appealed from, whether or not under section 330 of the Election Law. It would seem, however, that the matter lay in the administrative rather than in the judicial realm and that resort to the court should not have been necessary. If it is necessary for the adequate preparation of objections to petitions that the board of elections remain open after regular office hours, the board at its own direction should make such provision for staying open as the exigencies may require. Furthermore, during any period that the offices of the board of elections are open, its facilities should be made equally available to all, or at least to all similarly situated or interested in the same contest. It follows that any court order requiring the board of elections to remain open after usual hours should not be confined to making the facilities available to the petitioner alone.

While we have made corrective suggestions for future reference, we do not think that the vacation of the present order is dictated or that we would be warranted in directing a suppression of the evidence obtained pursuant to the order.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.

Peck, P. J., Botein, Frank and Valente, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We think that it was within the power of the Supreme Court to issue the order appealed from, whether or not under section 330 of the Election Law. It would seem, however, that the matter lay in the administrative rather than in the judicial realm and that resort to the court should not have been necessary. If it is necessary for the adequate preparation of objections to petitions that the board of elections remain open after regular office hours, the board at its own direction should make such provision for staying open as the exigencies may require. Furthermore, during any period that the offices of the board of elections are open, its facilities should be made equally available to all, or at least to all similarly situated or interested in the same contest. It follows that any court order requiring the board of elections to remain open after usual hours should not be confined to making the facilities available to the petitioner alone.

While we have made corrective suggestions for future reference, we do not think that the vacation of the present order is dictated or that we would be warranted in directing a suppression of the evidence obtained pursuant to the order.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.

Peck, P. J., Botein, Frank and Valente, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 492, 151 N.Y.S.2d 383, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calise-v-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-1956.