Hayes v. Lomenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Lomenzo

26 A.D.2d 596, 271 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3966

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

DecidedJune 20, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 596 (Hayes v. Lomenzo) 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

Hayes v. Lomenzo, 26 A.D.2d 596, 271 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum by the Court.

Special Term did not have jurisdiction inasmuch as service on the parties other than the Secretary of State was attempted to be made by mailing copies of the order to show cause and supporting papers on or before 11:00 p.m. on June 8, 1966, the last day for service (Election Law § 314, subd. 12, as amd. by L. 1966, ch. 106, eff. March 31, 1966). To effect proper service, it was necessary that the papers be received on June 8th (Matter of King v. Cohen, 293 N. Y. 435; Matter of Ullman Power, 36 Misc 2d 1015, affd. 17 A D 2d 792, affd. 12 N Y 2d 724). The proof of mailing does raise the presumption that the mail was received, as Special Term held; but there is no presumption that it was received on a particular date, in this case June 8. With this hiatus in the proof, petitioner Hayes did not submit, at Special Term or in this court, any return receipt evidencing delivery on June 8th. Special Term took no proof and the grounds of invalidity of the designating petition which it found, assuming arguendo that they were properly before it (but cf. Election Law, § 145), cannot be sustained. Petitioner Hayes’ objection to the court’s consideration of an affidavit and Zip Code Directory sustained. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Memorandum by the Court.

Special Term did not have jurisdiction inasmuch as service on the parties other than the Secretary of State was attempted to be made by mailing copies of the order to show cause and supporting papers on or before 11:00 p.m. on June 8, 1966, the last day for service (Election Law § 314, subd. 12, as amd. by L. 1966, ch. 106, eff. March 31, 1966). To effect proper service, it was necessary that the papers be received on June 8th (Matter of King v. Cohen, 293 N. Y. 435; Matter of Ullman Power, 36 Misc 2d 1015, affd. 17 A D 2d 792, affd. 12 N Y 2d 724). The proof of mailing does raise the presumption that the mail was received, as Special Term held; but there is no presumption that it was received on a particular date, in this case June 8. With this hiatus in the proof, petitioner Hayes did not submit, at Special Term or in this court, any return receipt evidencing delivery on June 8th. Special Term took no proof and the grounds of invalidity of the designating petition which it found, assuming arguendo that they were properly before it (but cf. Election Law, § 145), cannot be sustained. Petitioner Hayes’ objection to the court’s consideration of an affidavit and Zip Code Directory sustained. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 596, 271 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-lomenzo-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack