Crosta v. O'Rourke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crosta v. O'Rourke

242 A.D.2d 856, 662 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10374

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 856 (Crosta v. O'Rourke) 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

Crosta v. O'Rourke, 242 A.D.2d 856, 662 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s application to invalidate a petition designating Michael G. O’Rourke (respondent) as a candidate for Erie County Sheriff in the Democratic Party primary. Whether a designating peti-

[857]*857tion is permeated with fraud or irregularities, as petitioner contends, is generally a question of fact (see, Matter of Ruiz v McKenna, 40 NY2d 815, 816; see also, Matter of Mercorella v Benza, 37 NY2d 792), and there is no basis in the record to disturb the court’s resolution of that issue in respondent’s favor. The fact that a large number of the signatures on respondent’s designating petition were invalidated by the Erie County Board of Elections does not by itself establish “gross irregularity or fraudulent practice” (Matter of Kogan v D’Angelo, 54 NY2d 781, 783; see, Matter of Cilmi v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 220 AD2d 587; Matter of Segreti v Adler, 175 AD2d 765). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Election Law.) Present—Green, J. P., Wisner, Do-err, Balio and Boehm, JJ. (Filed Aug. 20, 1997.)

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s application to invalidate a petition designating Michael G. O’Rourke (respondent) as a candidate for Erie County Sheriff in the Democratic Party primary. Whether a designating peti-

[857]*857tion is permeated with fraud or irregularities, as petitioner contends, is generally a question of fact (see, Matter of Ruiz v McKenna, 40 NY2d 815, 816; see also, Matter of Mercorella v Benza, 37 NY2d 792), and there is no basis in the record to disturb the court’s resolution of that issue in respondent’s favor. The fact that a large number of the signatures on respondent’s designating petition were invalidated by the Erie County Board of Elections does not by itself establish “gross irregularity or fraudulent practice” (Matter of Kogan v D’Angelo, 54 NY2d 781, 783; see, Matter of Cilmi v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 220 AD2d 587; Matter of Segreti v Adler, 175 AD2d 765). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.—Election Law.) Present—Green, J. P., Wisner, Do-err, Balio and Boehm, JJ. (Filed Aug. 20, 1997.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 856, 662 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosta-v-orourke-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack