Grancio v. Coveney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grancio v. Coveney

96 A.D.2d 918, 466 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19543

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

DecidedAugust 24, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.2d 918 (Grancio v. Coveney) 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

Grancio v. Coveney, 96 A.D.2d 918, 466 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to invalidate the petition designating Benedict P. Vuturo, Charles Tomasella and Raymond J. Nugent as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 13,1983, for the office of District Court Judge, Fifth District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Corso, J.), dated August 19, 1983, which dismissed the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The court properly dismissed the application because, as conceded, petitioner failed to serve notice of specifications of objections as required by 9 NYCRR 6204.1 (b). In addition, we note that candidates for a judicial office are exempt from the authorization requirement of subdivision 3 of section 6-120 of the Election Law (see Matter of Grancio v Coveney, 96 AD2d 917). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to invalidate the petition designating Benedict P. Vuturo, Charles Tomasella and Raymond J. Nugent as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 13,1983, for the office of District Court Judge, Fifth District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Corso, J.), dated August 19, 1983, which dismissed the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The court properly dismissed the application because, as conceded, petitioner failed to serve notice of specifications of objections as required by 9 NYCRR 6204.1 (b). In addition, we note that candidates for a judicial office are exempt from the authorization requirement of subdivision 3 of section 6-120 of the Election Law (see Matter of Grancio v Coveney, 96 AD2d 917). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 918, 466 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grancio-v-coveney-nyappdiv-1983.