Fox v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fox v. Cohen

262 A.D. 1028, 30 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7103

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D. 1028 (Fox v. Cohen) 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

Fox v. Cohen, 262 A.D. 1028, 30 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified on the law and [1029]*1029facts by striking out the first ordering paragraph and as so modified the order is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appellants failed to obey either the Election Law or the rules of their own party. It was their affirmative duty to secure the necessary data to enable them to send out the notices so that a meeting could be held within twenty days after the election of the members of the county committee, as required by the Election Law and the rules of the party. They did not take any steps to secure this data. However, it affirmatively appeared on the argument that when the order was made such data could not be made available in time for the appellants to perform the duty imposed upon them by the order appealed from. Therefore, an order of mandamus should not have issued against them. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order modified on the law and [1029]*1029facts by striking out the first ordering paragraph and as so modified the order is unanimously affirmed, without costs. The appellants failed to obey either the Election Law or the rules of their own party. It was their affirmative duty to secure the necessary data to enable them to send out the notices so that a meeting could be held within twenty days after the election of the members of the county committee, as required by the Election Law and the rules of the party. They did not take any steps to secure this data. However, it affirmatively appeared on the argument that when the order was made such data could not be made available in time for the appellants to perform the duty imposed upon them by the order appealed from. Therefore, an order of mandamus should not have issued against them. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 1028, 30 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack