Giambrone v. Alberico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giambrone v. Alberico

179 A.D.2d 1090, 579 N.Y.S.2d 268, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2490

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 1090 (Giambrone v. Alberico) 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

Giambrone v. Alberico, 179 A.D.2d 1090, 579 N.Y.S.2d 268, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[1091]*1091The actions taken on November 22nd cannot be regarded either as a timely canvass under Election Law § 9-209, which has a time limit of 10 days, or as a timely recanvass under Election Law § 9-208, which has a time limit of 15 days. The time limits set forth in the Election Law are clear and unambiguous and cannot be changed by the court (Matter of Pillion v Lawley, 277 App Div 1017).

Furthermore, the Board of Elections failed to provide the mandatory five days’ notice of the November 22nd meeting (Election Law § 9-209 [1] [b]). Without such notice the canvass was invalid (cf., Matter of Cregg v Fisselbrand, 22 AD2d 342, 344-345, affd 15 NY2d 748 [notice requirement in Election Law § 274 (1) (now § 9-208) mandatory]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Election Law.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Jan. 10,1992.)

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

[1091]*1091The actions taken on November 22nd cannot be regarded either as a timely canvass under Election Law § 9-209, which has a time limit of 10 days, or as a timely recanvass under Election Law § 9-208, which has a time limit of 15 days. The time limits set forth in the Election Law are clear and unambiguous and cannot be changed by the court (Matter of Pillion v Lawley, 277 App Div 1017).

Furthermore, the Board of Elections failed to provide the mandatory five days’ notice of the November 22nd meeting (Election Law § 9-209 [1] [b]). Without such notice the canvass was invalid (cf., Matter of Cregg v Fisselbrand, 22 AD2d 342, 344-345, affd 15 NY2d 748 [notice requirement in Election Law § 274 (1) (now § 9-208) mandatory]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Election Law.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Jan. 10,1992.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 1090, 579 N.Y.S.2d 268, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giambrone-v-alberico-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack