Contessa v. McCarthy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Contessa v. McCarthy

54 A.D.2d 781, 387 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14463

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 781 (Contessa v. McCarthy) 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

Contessa v. McCarthy, 54 A.D.2d 781, 387 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Albany County, dated October 8, 1976, which, in a proceeding pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law to invalidate the independent nominating petition designating appellants as candidates of the Independence Party for the public offices of President of the United States of America, Vice-President of the United States of America, and 41 Electors of President and Vice-President, denied appellants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as untimely. While we disagree with Special Term’s conclusion that the affidavits submitted by three of the appellants fail to raise an issue of fact because the affiants failed to state either their address or zip code, we nonetheless find that the proceeding was timely commenced (Election Law, § 330). Order affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Mahoney, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Albany County, dated October 8, 1976, which, in a proceeding pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law to invalidate the independent nominating petition designating appellants as candidates of the Independence Party for the public offices of President of the United States of America, Vice-President of the United States of America, and 41 Electors of President and Vice-President, denied appellants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding as untimely. While we disagree with Special Term’s conclusion that the affidavits submitted by three of the appellants fail to raise an issue of fact because the affiants failed to state either their address or zip code, we nonetheless find that the proceeding was timely commenced (Election Law, § 330). Order affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Mahoney, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 781, 387 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/contessa-v-mccarthy-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack