Cappellazzi v. Toto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cappellazzi v. Toto

57 A.D.2d 599, 394 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11601

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

DecidedApril 21, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 599 (Cappellazzi v. Toto) 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

Cappellazzi v. Toto, 57 A.D.2d 599, 394 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating petitioner-respondent as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977, for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 25, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 15, 1977, which (1) granted the application and (2) directed the board of elections to place petitioner’s name upon the appropriate ballot. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application denied, and the board of elections is directed to remove petitioner’s name from the ballot in question. It was error for Special Term to proceed with the trial since one of the objectors, Joan H. Reed, was not named as a party and was not served (see Matter of Butler v Hayduk, 37 NY2d 497). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating petitioner-respondent as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977, for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 25, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 15, 1977, which (1) granted the application and (2) directed the board of elections to place petitioner’s name upon the appropriate ballot. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application denied, and the board of elections is directed to remove petitioner’s name from the ballot in question. It was error for Special Term to proceed with the trial since one of the objectors, Joan H. Reed, was not named as a party and was not served (see Matter of Butler v Hayduk, 37 NY2d 497). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 599, 394 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappellazzi-v-toto-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack