Higby v. Mahoney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Higby v. Mahoney

71 A.D.2d 1047, 421 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13415

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 1047 (Higby v. Mahoney) 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

Higby v. Mahoney, 71 A.D.2d 1047, 421 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner seeks to have his designating petition validated for the position of councilman in the Town of Orchard Park, which is wholly within one assembly district. The election district number was inserted in the statement of each subscribing witness but the number of the assembly district was omitted. For the reasons stated in Matter of Vari v Hayduk (59 AD2d 571) we would affirm; but under constraint of the reversal of that decision (42 NY2d 980) and similar holdings by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Morris v Hayduk (45 NY2d 793) and Matter of Rutter v Coveney (38 NY2d 993) we reverse. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—Election Law.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Witmer, JJ. (Decided Aug. 22, 1979.)

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

—Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner seeks to have his designating petition validated for the position of councilman in the Town of Orchard Park, which is wholly within one assembly district. The election district number was inserted in the statement of each subscribing witness but the number of the assembly district was omitted. For the reasons stated in Matter of Vari v Hayduk (59 AD2d 571) we would affirm; but under constraint of the reversal of that decision (42 NY2d 980) and similar holdings by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Morris v Hayduk (45 NY2d 793) and Matter of Rutter v Coveney (38 NY2d 993) we reverse. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—Election Law.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Doerr and Witmer, JJ. (Decided Aug. 22, 1979.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 1047, 421 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higby-v-mahoney-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack