Gibbs v. Howell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gibbs v. Howell

45 A.D.2d 774, 356 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4794

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

DecidedJune 6, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 774 (Gibbs v. Howell) 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

Gibbs v. Howell, 45 A.D.2d 774, 356 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 20, 1974 in Tompkins County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to section 2-224 of the Village Law, determined the validity and regularity of the elections for the proposed incorporation of the Village of Lansing. Petitioner is a nonresident owner of property situate in the territory sought to be incorporated. He and a number of others similarly situated own approximately 90% of the real property in the proposed territory for the new village, but are not entitled to vote on the proposition (Village Law, § 2-216). He contends he is unconstitutionally disenfranchised in this process under the equal protection clause and in violation of due process (N. V. Const., art. I, § 11; art. I, § 6), and further attacks the validity of the conduct of the elections. We find no merit in the contention the election was marred by such defects and irregularities as to render it invalid for the reasons set forth at Special Term, and further decide the residency requirement in section 2-216 of the Village Law is constitutionally permissible (see Matter of Dart v. Howell, 45 A D 2d 47). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 20, 1974 in Tompkins County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to section 2-224 of the Village Law, determined the validity and regularity of the elections for the proposed incorporation of the Village of Lansing. Petitioner is a nonresident owner of property situate in the territory sought to be incorporated. He and a number of others similarly situated own approximately 90% of the real property in the proposed territory for the new village, but are not entitled to vote on the proposition (Village Law, § 2-216). He contends he is unconstitutionally disenfranchised in this process under the equal protection clause and in violation of due process (N. V. Const., art. I, § 11; art. I, § 6), and further attacks the validity of the conduct of the elections. We find no merit in the contention the election was marred by such defects and irregularities as to render it invalid for the reasons set forth at Special Term, and further decide the residency requirement in section 2-216 of the Village Law is constitutionally permissible (see Matter of Dart v. Howell, 45 A D 2d 47). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 774, 356 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-howell-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack