Gianelli v. Frisa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gianelli v. Frisa

230 A.D.2d 873, 646 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8612

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D.2d 873 (Gianelli v. Frisa) 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

Gianelli v. Frisa, 230 A.D.2d 873, 646 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Daniel Frisa as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 10, 1996, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Congressional Representative for the 4th Congressional District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated August 2, 1996, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the respondents’ designating petition was valid as there was substantial compliance with Election Law § 6-134 (see, Election Law § 6-134 [2], [15]; Matter of Jonas v Black, 104 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 685).

O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Daniel Frisa as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 10, 1996, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Congressional Representative for the 4th Congressional District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated August 2, 1996, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the respondents’ designating petition was valid as there was substantial compliance with Election Law § 6-134 (see, Election Law § 6-134 [2], [15]; Matter of Jonas v Black, 104 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 685).

O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 873, 646 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gianelli-v-frisa-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack