De Camilla v. Connery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Camilla v. Connery

23 A.D.2d 704, 256 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4702

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 704 (De Camilla v. Connery) 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

De Camilla v. Connery, 23 A.D.2d 704, 256 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a denial by the County Court of Washington County of the petitioner-appellant’s application. The appellant states in his brief that “ This proceeding was brought under Article 78 of the CPLR to review the eligibility of your appellant and of your respondent, as rival candidates for the position of chairman of the Town of Kingsbury Democratic Committee ”. The court had no jurisdiction of the proceeding under article 78 (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1287; CPLR 7804, subd. [b]; Matter of Sovocool v. David, 7 A D 2d 262) and hence the court, although incorrectly considering the legal rights of - the parties rather than lack of -jurisdiction, was correct in denying the petitioner’s application. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any action or proceeding, which the petitioner may elect, brought in a proper forum and against all necessary parties and without expression of any opinion as to the merits. Order affirmed, with $20 costs. • Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, -JJ.,' concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a denial by the County Court of Washington County of the petitioner-appellant’s application. The appellant states in his brief that “ This proceeding was brought under Article 78 of the CPLR to review the eligibility of your appellant and of your respondent, as rival candidates for the position of chairman of the Town of Kingsbury Democratic Committee ”. The court had no jurisdiction of the proceeding under article 78 (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1287; CPLR 7804, subd. [b]; Matter of Sovocool v. David, 7 A D 2d 262) and hence the court, although incorrectly considering the legal rights of - the parties rather than lack of -jurisdiction, was correct in denying the petitioner’s application. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any action or proceeding, which the petitioner may elect, brought in a proper forum and against all necessary parties and without expression of any opinion as to the merits. Order affirmed, with $20 costs. • Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, -JJ.,' concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 704, 256 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-camilla-v-connery-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack