Gephard v. Hodas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gephard v. Hodas

71 A.D.2d 937, 419 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13193

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

DecidedAugust 21, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 937 (Gephard v. Hodas) 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

Gephard v. Hodas, 71 A.D.2d 937, 419 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to invalidate petitions designating respondent Anna Bucholz as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 11, 1979 for the public office of Town Supervisor of the Town of Poughkeepsie, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated August 20, 1979, which, after a hearing, (1) dismissed the proceeding and (2) directed the Commissioners of Elections to place the name of Anna Bucholz on the ballot. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While we do not agree with the findings of Special Term concerning alterations made in the statement of the subscribing witnesses (see Matter of Berger v Acito, 64 AD2d 949; Matter of Nobles v Grant, 57 AD2d 600, affd 41 NY2d 1048), there are sufficient valid signatures to allow respondent Buchholz’ designation. In particular, the absence of a transcript makes it difficult for this court to say that petitioners have met their burden of proof. Mollen, P. J., O’Connor, Shapiro and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to invalidate petitions designating respondent Anna Bucholz as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 11, 1979 for the public office of Town Supervisor of the Town of Poughkeepsie, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated August 20, 1979, which, after a hearing, (1) dismissed the proceeding and (2) directed the Commissioners of Elections to place the name of Anna Bucholz on the ballot. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. While we do not agree with the findings of Special Term concerning alterations made in the statement of the subscribing witnesses (see Matter of Berger v Acito, 64 AD2d 949; Matter of Nobles v Grant, 57 AD2d 600, affd 41 NY2d 1048), there are sufficient valid signatures to allow respondent Buchholz’ designation. In particular, the absence of a transcript makes it difficult for this court to say that petitioners have met their burden of proof. Mollen, P. J., O’Connor, Shapiro and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 937, 419 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gephard-v-hodas-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack