Coleman v. Boone

230 A.D.2d 872, 646 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8615
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 20, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 A.D.2d 872 (Coleman v. Boone) 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
Coleman v. Boone, 230 A.D.2d 872, 646 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Diana Coleman as a candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 18th Assembly District, County of Nassau, the appeal is from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 13, 1996, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated August 15, 1996, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

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

The changes on pages 34 and 45 of the designating petition were properly initialled by a subscribing witness. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly restored 32 signatures from these pages to the petitioner’s designating petition (cf., Matter of Jonas v Velez, 65 NY2d 954). The change of "6” to "June” on the date on the subscribing witness’s signature line on page 21 of the designating petition was an inconsequential alteration, and therefore does not invalidate the signatures on this page (see, Election Law § 6-134 [8]; Matter of Buley v Tutunjian, 153 AD2d 784; Matter of Bachety v Canary, 112 AD2d 1058). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly restored 8 of the 12 signatures on page 21 of the designating petition. The restoration of these signatures gave the petitioner the required number of valid signatures on her designating petition.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Romaine v. Suffolk County Board of Elections
65 A.D.3d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 A.D.2d 872, 646 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-boone-nyappdiv-1996.