Curcio v. Donnelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curcio v. Donnelly

284 A.D.2d 458, 726 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6347

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

DecidedJune 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 458 (Curcio v. Donnelly) 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

Curcio v. Donnelly, 284 A.D.2d 458, 726 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, in effect, to invalidate a purported certificate of election filed with the Suffolk County Board of Elections by the individual respondents, the petitioners appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated April 6, 2001, which granted the motion of the respondent Jack Pellicano, Jr., to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against him for failure to properly serve him, and (2) an order of the same court, dated April 20, 2001, which granted the motion of all the respondents except Jack Pellicano, Jr., to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against them for failure to join a necessary party. .

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination in Matter [459]*459of Donnelly v Curcio (284 AD2d 460 [decided herewith]). O’Brien, J. R, Krausman, Goldstein and Smith, 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 § 16-102, in effect, to invalidate a purported certificate of election filed with the Suffolk County Board of Elections by the individual respondents, the petitioners appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated April 6, 2001, which granted the motion of the respondent Jack Pellicano, Jr., to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against him for failure to properly serve him, and (2) an order of the same court, dated April 20, 2001, which granted the motion of all the respondents except Jack Pellicano, Jr., to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against them for failure to join a necessary party. .

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination in Matter [459]*459of Donnelly v Curcio (284 AD2d 460 [decided herewith]). O’Brien, J. R, Krausman, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 458, 726 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curcio-v-donnelly-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack