Diamond v. Larkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diamond v. Larkin

39 A.D.2d 866, 333 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310

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

DecidedJune 13, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 866 (Diamond v. Larkin) 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

Diamond v. Larkin, 39 A.D.2d 866, 333 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on June 5, 1972, denying petitioners’ motions to validate designating petitions for the party position of county committeemen in the 80th and 85th Assembly Districts, Bronx County, in the Liberal Party primaries to be held on June 20, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, the petitions granted, the determinations of the Board of Elections reversed and the petitions validated. In the absence of any claim of fraud, it clearly appearing that the printing error was not designed to and could not mislead the party voters, the Board of Elections erred in invalidating the petitions. In any event, if either objeetant had standing to contest the petitions, the validity of his objection would be limited to the election district in which the objeetant resided or from which he was a candidate. Concur — Stevens, P. J., MeGivern, Markewich, Murphy and Steuer, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on June 5, 1972, denying petitioners’ motions to validate designating petitions for the party position of county committeemen in the 80th and 85th Assembly Districts, Bronx County, in the Liberal Party primaries to be held on June 20, 1972, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, without costs and without disbursements, the petitions granted, the determinations of the Board of Elections reversed and the petitions validated. In the absence of any claim of fraud, it clearly appearing that the printing error was not designed to and could not mislead the party voters, the Board of Elections erred in invalidating the petitions. In any event, if either objeetant had standing to contest the petitions, the validity of his objection would be limited to the election district in which the objeetant resided or from which he was a candidate. Concur — Stevens, P. J., MeGivern, Markewich, Murphy and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 866, 333 N.Y.S.2d 244, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamond-v-larkin-nyappdiv-1972.