Davidson v. Eastman

New York Court of Appeals

Davidson v. Eastman

320 N.E.2d 643, 35 N.Y.2d 735, 361 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1259

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 320 N.E.2d 643 (Davidson v. Eastman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davidson v. Eastman, 320 N.E.2d 643, 35 N.Y.2d 735, 361 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1259 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. We construe the ultimate objective of these three proceedings to be to strike the designations of three candidates. The procedure to accomplish this objective is to be found in subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law.

The particular defect on the basis of which the challenge here is grounded is failure to file the required authorizations under subdivision 4 of section 137 of the Election Law. The statute mandated such filing on July 19. Even if challengers were to be allowed a reasonable time thereafter within which to discover such omissions, the 14-day statutory period of limitations of subdivision 1 of section 330 had long expired when these proceedings were instituted on September 19 and thereafter.

The device of an article 78 proceeding may not be employed to reopen a period of limitation which has expired. (Matter of Murray v. Lord, 35 N Y 2d 737.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Waohtler and Rabin concur; Judge Stevens taking no part.

Order reversed, without costs, and the petitions dismissed in a memorandum.

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