Grill v. Board of Elections

New York Supreme Court

Grill v. Board of Elections

169 Misc. 589, 7 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2055

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 12, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 Misc. 589 (Grill v. Board of Elections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grill v. Board of Elections, 169 Misc. 589, 7 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2055 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Valente, J.

This is an application to enjoin the board of elections from placing on the primary ballot under the American Labor party emblem the name of Julius Green, in whose behalf petitions were filed purporting to nominate him for the Assembly. The gravamen of the complaint is that the subscribing witness did [590]*590not obtain the signers’ signatures and that the signature of the witness is a forgery. From the papers before me as well as the testimony that was taken, I cannot share the view of the petitioner. Not only are his contentions contradicted but from the evidence that has been adduced it is clear that the signatures on the petition are genuine. Assuming, but not finding, that the subscribing witness was not present when the voter actually placed his signature to the designating petition, the fact nevertheless remains that the signatures are authentic and the court may not in such case disregard the substance to see the shadow. A genuine signature of a voter certainly loses none of its authenticity by reason of an irregularity attendant upon the signing by a subscribing witness. The statute (Election Law, § 135) should be liberally construed to effectuate the preference expressed by voters rather than frustrate their wishes. (Matter of McClosky, 21 Misc. 365; Matter of Bassett, 108 id. 461.) In my opinion there has been substantial compliance with the statute and, therefore, the application is denied.

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

Valente, J.

This is an application to enjoin the board of elections from placing on the primary ballot under the American Labor party emblem the name of Julius Green, in whose behalf petitions were filed purporting to nominate him for the Assembly. The gravamen of the complaint is that the subscribing witness did [590]*590not obtain the signers’ signatures and that the signature of the witness is a forgery. From the papers before me as well as the testimony that was taken, I cannot share the view of the petitioner. Not only are his contentions contradicted but from the evidence that has been adduced it is clear that the signatures on the petition are genuine. Assuming, but not finding, that the subscribing witness was not present when the voter actually placed his signature to the designating petition, the fact nevertheless remains that the signatures are authentic and the court may not in such case disregard the substance to see the shadow. A genuine signature of a voter certainly loses none of its authenticity by reason of an irregularity attendant upon the signing by a subscribing witness. The statute (Election Law, § 135) should be liberally construed to effectuate the preference expressed by voters rather than frustrate their wishes. (Matter of McClosky, 21 Misc. 365; Matter of Bassett, 108 id. 461.) In my opinion there has been substantial compliance with the statute and, therefore, the application is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Misc. 589, 7 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grill-v-board-of-elections-nysupct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack