Dwyer v. Barasch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dwyer v. Barasch

176 A.D.2d 1067, 575 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13226

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 1067 (Dwyer v. Barasch) 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

Dwyer v. Barasch, 176 A.D.2d 1067, 575 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered October 15, 1991 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, dismissed petitioner’s application as untimely.

We affirm. Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding inasmuch as petitioner failed to commence it within the statutorily imposed time limitation (see, Election Law § 16-102 [2]). We reject petitioner’s argument that an extension was appropriate, given that petitioner was on notice of the circumstances giving rise to this proceeding several days before the expiration of the time to commence this proceeding (see, [1068]*1068Matter of Thompson v Wallace, 45 NY2d 803; Matter of Bruno v Peyser, 54 AD2d 591, affd 40 NY2d 827).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

— Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered October 15, 1991 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, dismissed petitioner’s application as untimely.

We affirm. Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding inasmuch as petitioner failed to commence it within the statutorily imposed time limitation (see, Election Law § 16-102 [2]). We reject petitioner’s argument that an extension was appropriate, given that petitioner was on notice of the circumstances giving rise to this proceeding several days before the expiration of the time to commence this proceeding (see, [1068]*1068Matter of Thompson v Wallace, 45 NY2d 803; Matter of Bruno v Peyser, 54 AD2d 591, affd 40 NY2d 827).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 1067, 575 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwyer-v-barasch-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack