Cane v. Mahoney

New York Court of Appeals

Cane v. Mahoney

355 N.E.2d 796, 40 N.Y.2d 819, 387 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2990

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 2, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 355 N.E.2d 796 (Cane v. Mahoney) 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

Cane v. Mahoney, 355 N.E.2d 796, 40 N.Y.2d 819, 387 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2990 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. It does not appear that petitioner was a member of the Democratic Party, nor does she assert that she was entitled to the authorization of that party for designation as its candidate.1 In this circumstance petitioner lacks standing to raise any issue as to whether the filing of the Democratic Party’s certificate of authorization conformed to the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 137 of the Election Law (Matter of Wydler v Cristenfeld, 35 NY2d 719). It is of no consequence for present purposes that this proceeding was instituted under CPLR article 78 rather than pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law.

[821]*821Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke.

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

Order affirmed, without costs. It does not appear that petitioner was a member of the Democratic Party, nor does she assert that she was entitled to the authorization of that party for designation as its candidate.1 In this circumstance petitioner lacks standing to raise any issue as to whether the filing of the Democratic Party’s certificate of authorization conformed to the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 137 of the Election Law (Matter of Wydler v Cristenfeld, 35 NY2d 719). It is of no consequence for present purposes that this proceeding was instituted under CPLR article 78 rather than pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law.

[821]*821Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 N.E.2d 796, 40 N.Y.2d 819, 387 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cane-v-mahoney-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack