Chiavaro v. New York City Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chiavaro v. New York City Board of Elections

224 A.D.2d 562, 638 N.Y.S.2d 356

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 562 (Chiavaro v. New York City 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

Chiavaro v. New York City Board of Elections, 224 A.D.2d 562, 638 N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 to invalidate petitions designating Tangerine A. Arce, Muriel A. Camacho, and Blanca A. Reilly as candidates in a primary election to be held on March 7, 1996, for the Republican Party party positions of delegates and Sharon Holley, Jose L. Artoret, and Johnny Mejia as alternate delegates, respectively, for the 16th Congressional District to the 1996 Republican National Convention, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, after a hearing, denied the application and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the appellant did not have standing to bring it (see, Matter of Sgambati v New York City Bd. of Elections, 224 AD2d 564 [decided herewith]). In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying a motion to amend the petition to allege that the appellant has standing as an "aggrieved candidate” (see, Felix v Lettre, 204 AD2d 679).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 to invalidate petitions designating Tangerine A. Arce, Muriel A. Camacho, and Blanca A. Reilly as candidates in a primary election to be held on March 7, 1996, for the Republican Party party positions of delegates and Sharon Holley, Jose L. Artoret, and Johnny Mejia as alternate delegates, respectively, for the 16th Congressional District to the 1996 Republican National Convention, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, after a hearing, denied the application and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the appellant did not have standing to bring it (see, Matter of Sgambati v New York City Bd. of Elections, 224 AD2d 564 [decided herewith]). In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying a motion to amend the petition to allege that the appellant has standing as an "aggrieved candidate” (see, Felix v Lettre, 204 AD2d 679).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 562, 638 N.Y.S.2d 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chiavaro-v-new-york-city-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack