De Masi v. D'Apice

97 A.D.2d 526, 468 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20126
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 25, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 97 A.D.2d 526 (De Masi v. D'Apice) 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 Masi v. D'Apice, 97 A.D.2d 526, 468 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

In a proceeding to validate a petition nominating the petitioner as a candidate of the Sound Independent Party in the election to be held on November 8, 1983, for the office of County Legislator, County of Westchester, 7th District, Stephen Mawn and the board of elections separately appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), dated October 17, 1983, which granted the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding dismissed. The board of elections is hereby directed to remove petitioner’s name from the appropriate ballot. The designation of the “Town or City” in the statement of a subscribing witness to a nominating petition “is a matter of the legislatively mandated content of the petition, i.e., a matter of substance and not of form” (Matter of Frame v Board of Elections, 57 NY2d 741, 742; see Election Law, § 6-140, subd 1). The failure to include the prescribed information, or an inaccurate recording thereof, is fatal (Matter of Frome v Board of Elections, supra). Consequently, the aggregate number of 37 signatures on sheet numbers 69, 72 and 77 and 13 signatures on sheet number 84, ruled valid by Special Term, must be invalidated. Absent these signatures, the nominating petition does not contain the requisite number of signatures needed for petitioner’s name to be placed upon the ballot. In view of the foregoing, we do not address the other issues presented on this appeal. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Lazer and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kepert v. Tullo
88 A.D.3d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Zobel v. New York State of Elections
254 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Zobel v. New York State Board of Elections
178 Misc. 2d 439 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
De Masi v. D'Apice
457 N.E.2d 807 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A.D.2d 526, 468 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-masi-v-dapice-nyappdiv-1983.