Dorsey v. Cohen

New York Supreme Court

Dorsey v. Cohen

156 Misc. 792, 282 N.Y.S. 792, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1483

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 29, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 Misc. 792 (Dorsey v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorsey v. Cohen, 156 Misc. 792, 282 N.Y.S. 792, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1483 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Rosenman, J.

The provisions of section 135 of the Election Law, added by chapter 955 of the Laws of 1935, requiring a statement showing when and where the subscribing witness was last registered, is a substantial amendment. Its efficacy to prevent fraud is not a matter for the court’s consideration. It must be complied with, along with other formal requirements of law. Non-compliance therewith justifies the action which the board of elections has taken. Motion denied. Settle order on one day’s notice.

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

Rosenman, J.

The provisions of section 135 of the Election Law, added by chapter 955 of the Laws of 1935, requiring a statement showing when and where the subscribing witness was last registered, is a substantial amendment. Its efficacy to prevent fraud is not a matter for the court’s consideration. It must be complied with, along with other formal requirements of law. Non-compliance therewith justifies the action which the board of elections has taken. Motion denied. Settle order on one day’s notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 Misc. 792, 282 N.Y.S. 792, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorsey-v-cohen-nysupct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack