Delaney v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Delaney v. Power

19 A.D.2d 779, 242 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259

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

DecidedAugust 21, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 779 (Delaney v. Power) 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

Delaney v. Power, 19 A.D.2d 779, 242 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered August 20, 1963, unanimously reversed on the law and petition dismissed, without costs. The statute (Election Law, §§ 242-a, 248) does not mandate in the case of machines the use of “ slate ” voting in primary elections. On the contrary, the provisions of the statute relating to the arrangement of the ballots for use in primary elections prescribe the use of the so-called “Massachusetts form” of primary ballot. (See Election Law, § 108.) Matter of Greitzer v. Power (10 A D 2d 921) sustained the exercise of discretion in the Board of Elections based on mechanical limitations of the voting machine formerly in use. The mechanical limitations having been now removed, the board's discretion was properly exercised within the scope of the provisions of section 242-a of the Election Law. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered August 20, 1963, unanimously reversed on the law and petition dismissed, without costs. The statute (Election Law, §§ 242-a, 248) does not mandate in the case of machines the use of “ slate ” voting in primary elections. On the contrary, the provisions of the statute relating to the arrangement of the ballots for use in primary elections prescribe the use of the so-called “Massachusetts form” of primary ballot. (See Election Law, § 108.) Matter of Greitzer v. Power (10 A D 2d 921) sustained the exercise of discretion in the Board of Elections based on mechanical limitations of the voting machine formerly in use. The mechanical limitations having been now removed, the board's discretion was properly exercised within the scope of the provisions of section 242-a of the Election Law. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 779, 242 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaney-v-power-nyappdiv-1963.