Eck v. Canary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eck v. Canary

112 A.D.2d 1063, 492 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52266

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

DecidedAugust 21, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 1063 (Eck v. Canary) 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

Eck v. Canary, 112 A.D.2d 1063, 492 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions and authorizations designating Vincent Artale, Louis Boschette, Harold W. Stakey and Charles B. Bloss as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 10, 1985 for certain public offices in the Town of Riverhead, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 8, 1985 which denied the application on the ground that the petitioners objectors failed to file specific objections pursuant to Election Law § 6-154.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with Special Term that the specifications of objections filed by petitioners were inadequate as a matter of law and were tantamount to a failure to file such specifications (see, Election Law § 6-154; Matter of Benson v Scaringe, 84 AD2d 603, Iv denied 54 NY2d 609). Brown, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions and authorizations designating Vincent Artale, Louis Boschette, Harold W. Stakey and Charles B. Bloss as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 10, 1985 for certain public offices in the Town of Riverhead, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated August 8, 1985 which denied the application on the ground that the petitioners objectors failed to file specific objections pursuant to Election Law § 6-154.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with Special Term that the specifications of objections filed by petitioners were inadequate as a matter of law and were tantamount to a failure to file such specifications (see, Election Law § 6-154; Matter of Benson v Scaringe, 84 AD2d 603, Iv denied 54 NY2d 609). Brown, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 1063, 492 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eck-v-canary-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack