Corso v. Albany County Board of Elections

90 A.D.2d 637, 456 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18712

This text of 90 A.D.2d 637 (Corso v. Albany County 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
Corso v. Albany County Board of Elections, 90 A.D.2d 637, 456 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cobb, J.), entered October 18,1982 in Albany County, which dismissed, without prejudice, petitioners’ application to compel respondent Albany County Board of Elections to divide the Third Election District, 15th Ward, of the City of Albany and the First Election District of the Town of Guilderland, pursuant to subdivision 6 of section 4-100 of the Election Law. In this proceeding to compel the respondent board of elections to divide election districts as required by subdivision 6 of section 4-100 of the Election Law, Special Term dismissed the petition, without prejudice, because of petitioners’ failure to join as parties the municipalities within which the districts in question are located, i.e., the City of Albany and the Town of Guilderland. These municipalities were deemed by the court to be necessary parties since it was concluded that, although the respondent board of elections could be directed to divide the subject districts as required by law, only the municipalities could designate polling places in the newly created districts (see Election Law, § 4-104). Inasmuch as these entities were not before the court and therefore could not be compelled to act, it was determined that petitioners could not be accorded complete relief and the proceeding should therefore be dismissed since “joinder at this point is not practicable because the election is less than three weeks away”. We disagree. The record in this case clearly demonstrates, and respondent concedes, that the election districts in question contain more than the permitted maximum number of registrants specified by the statute (Election Law, § 4-100, subd 3). It is also not disputed that the respective legislative bodies of the municipalities involved failed to realign these districts by July 1, 1982, as they are required to do when, at the time of the preceding general election, the total number of registrants exceeds the permitted maximum by at least 50 registered voters (Election Law, § 4-100, subd 4).

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

Related

In re Sturm
215 A.D. 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.2d 637, 456 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corso-v-albany-county-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-1982.