Glenn v. Morgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glenn v. Morgan

226 A.D.2d 266, 641 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654

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

DecidedApril 24, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 266 (Glenn v. Morgan) 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

Glenn v. Morgan, 226 A.D.2d 266, 641 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 19, 1996, which, inter alia, rejected the report of the Special Referee and denied the application to invalidate the nominating petition of Alberta Morgan, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We find that the Board of Elections in the City of New York improperly invalidated 61 signatures from the nominating petition because the wrong election district had been designated next to the signatures (see, Falu v Wagner, 185 AD2d 791; Rockefeller v Powers, 917 F Supp 155, affd 78 F3d 44; Schulz v Berman, US Dist Ct., ND NY, Oct. 27, 1994, Cholakis, J., 94-CV-1201, affd 43 F3d 1457) . These signatures are sufficient to render the petition valid, and, therefore, we need not address the remaining findings of the motion court, with which we do not concur. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 19, 1996, which, inter alia, rejected the report of the Special Referee and denied the application to invalidate the nominating petition of Alberta Morgan, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We find that the Board of Elections in the City of New York improperly invalidated 61 signatures from the nominating petition because the wrong election district had been designated next to the signatures (see, Falu v Wagner, 185 AD2d 791; Rockefeller v Powers, 917 F Supp 155, affd 78 F3d 44; Schulz v Berman, US Dist Ct., ND NY, Oct. 27, 1994, Cholakis, J., 94-CV-1201, affd 43 F3d 1457) . These signatures are sufficient to render the petition valid, and, therefore, we need not address the remaining findings of the motion court, with which we do not concur. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 266, 641 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenn-v-morgan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack