Eve v. Mahoney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eve v. Mahoney

45 A.D.2d 945, 358 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4193

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

DecidedAugust 23, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 945 (Eve v. Mahoney) 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

Eve v. Mahoney, 45 A.D.2d 945, 358 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Justice at Special Term who saw and heard the witnesses was in the best position to judge their credibility. We agree with his finding that there was no evidence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing on the part of respondent Hill. “We are required (Election Law, § 330) to construe liberally the Election Law to the end that the voters be afforded the fullest opportunity to exercise their franchise ” (Matter of Jones v. Gallo, 37 A D 2d 793, 794). Bearing this principle in mind, and recognizing the broad powers granted to the Supreme Court to make such orders as fairness and justice require in election eases (Matter of Rosen v. McNab, 25 N. Y 2d 798, 799), we concur in Special Term’s denial of the petition and also in the memorandum at Special Term, Stiller, J. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term in proceeding to invalidate nominating petitions.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Witmer, Moule, Mahoney and Goldman, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Justice at Special Term who saw and heard the witnesses was in the best position to judge their credibility. We agree with his finding that there was no evidence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing on the part of respondent Hill. “We are required (Election Law, § 330) to construe liberally the Election Law to the end that the voters be afforded the fullest opportunity to exercise their franchise ” (Matter of Jones v. Gallo, 37 A D 2d 793, 794). Bearing this principle in mind, and recognizing the broad powers granted to the Supreme Court to make such orders as fairness and justice require in election eases (Matter of Rosen v. McNab, 25 N. Y 2d 798, 799), we concur in Special Term’s denial of the petition and also in the memorandum at Special Term, Stiller, J. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term in proceeding to invalidate nominating petitions.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Witmer, Moule, Mahoney and Goldman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 945, 358 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eve-v-mahoney-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack