Gromack v. Huested

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gromack v. Huested

230 A.D.2d 874, 646 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8611

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D.2d 874 (Gromack v. Huested) 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

Gromack v. Huested, 230 A.D.2d 874, 646 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to invalidate a petition for opportunity to ballot by providing for a write-in candidate in a primary election to be held on September 10, 1996, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly from the 92nd Assembly District, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated August 8, 1996, as granted the petition to invalidate.

[875]*875Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that Alexander J. Gromack was an "aggrieved candidate” entitled to oppose the intervener’s opportunity to ballot petition (see, Matter of Liepshutz v Palmateer, 112 AD2d 1098, affd 65 NY2d 963; Matter of Ciccotti v Havel, 186 AD2d 979).

Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Pizzuto, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 for opportunity to ballot by providing for a write-in candidate in a primary election to be held on September 10, 1996, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly from the 92nd Assembly District, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated August 8, 1996, as granted the petition to invalidate.

[875]*875Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that Alexander J. Gromack was an "aggrieved candidate” entitled to oppose the intervener’s opportunity to ballot petition (see, Matter of Liepshutz v Palmateer, 112 AD2d 1098, affd 65 NY2d 963; Matter of Ciccotti v Havel, 186 AD2d 979).

Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Pizzuto, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 874, 646 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gromack-v-huested-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack