Higgins v. Martell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Higgins v. Martell

264 A.D.2d 698, 695 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9069

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 698 (Higgins v. Martell) 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

Higgins v. Martell, 264 A.D.2d 698, 695 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to invalidate a petition for an opportunity to ballot by providing for a write-in candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 1999, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Dutchess County Legislature, District 7, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated September 9, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the petition for failure to commence the proceeding within the time prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2) (see, Matter of Bessinger v Mahoney, 153 AD2d 791).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to invalidate a petition for an opportunity to ballot by providing for a write-in candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 1999, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Dutchess County Legislature, District 7, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated September 9, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying the petition for failure to commence the proceeding within the time prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2) (see, Matter of Bessinger v Mahoney, 153 AD2d 791).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 698, 695 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higgins-v-martell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack