Callahan v. Morrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Callahan v. Morrow

40 A.D.2d 619, 336 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3925

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 619 (Callahan v. Morrow) 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

Callahan v. Morrow, 40 A.D.2d 619, 336 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed upon the opinion at Special Term, without costs. Memorandum: We concur in Special Term’s statement that “in order to give meaning to the democratic process the law should be liberally interpreted as it pertains to an election involving write in votes.” We merely add that while it is true, as appellant contends, that the “ Courts do not have the right to interpret the intent and meaning of a voter’s mind ” (Matter of Murray v. Westall, 32 Misc 2d 378, 380), the courts do have, in a proceeding under the Election Law, the authority to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters as respects the identity of the person voted for (Matter of Hughes v. Harrer, 4 A D 2d 888). (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term, directing certification of candidate.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Cardamone and Henry, JJ. (Order entered Sept. 7, 1972.)

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

Order unanimously affirmed upon the opinion at Special Term, without costs. Memorandum: We concur in Special Term’s statement that “in order to give meaning to the democratic process the law should be liberally interpreted as it pertains to an election involving write in votes.” We merely add that while it is true, as appellant contends, that the “ Courts do not have the right to interpret the intent and meaning of a voter’s mind ” (Matter of Murray v. Westall, 32 Misc 2d 378, 380), the courts do have, in a proceeding under the Election Law, the authority to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters as respects the identity of the person voted for (Matter of Hughes v. Harrer, 4 A D 2d 888). (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term, directing certification of candidate.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Cardamone and Henry, JJ. (Order entered Sept. 7, 1972.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 619, 336 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callahan-v-morrow-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack