Dankberg v. Spuches

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dankberg v. Spuches

297 A.D.2d 254, 746 N.Y.2d 596

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 254 (Dankberg v. Spuches) 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

Dankberg v. Spuches, 297 A.D.2d 254, 746 N.Y.2d 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[255]*255Upon review of the record, we find that petitioners met their burden under Election Law § 16-110 (2). While not in itself determinative, we note that appellant initially filed to change his party registration. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Buckley and Marlow, JJ., dissent in a memorandum by Buckley, J., as follows: Based upon our review of the evidence and the law, we conclude that petitioners failed to meet their burden under Election Law § 16-110 (2).

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

[255]*255Upon review of the record, we find that petitioners met their burden under Election Law § 16-110 (2). While not in itself determinative, we note that appellant initially filed to change his party registration. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Buckley and Marlow, JJ., dissent in a memorandum by Buckley, J., as follows: Based upon our review of the evidence and the law, we conclude that petitioners failed to meet their burden under Election Law § 16-110 (2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 254, 746 N.Y.2d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dankberg-v-spuches-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack