Holster v. Matthews

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holster v. Matthews

185 A.D.2d 959, 587 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 25, 1992·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

— In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Charles E. Holster III, as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1992, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of New York State Senator for the 9th Senatorial District, the [960]*960appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered August 20, 1992, which, after a hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petitioner’s designating petition was invalid owing to a complete failure to number consecutively the 87 sheets of the petition in compliance with Election Law § 6-134 (2) (see, Matter of Braxton v Mahoney, 63 NY2d 691). None of the sheets were numbered as required by statute (see, Matter of Braxton v Mahoney, supra). Under the circumstances, there was not substantial compliance with the statute (cf., Matter of Rosen v McNab, 25 NY2d 798, 799; Matter of Jonas v Black, 104 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 685; Matter of Frawley v Regan, 77 AD2d 937). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Charles E. Holster III, as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1992, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of New York State Senator for the 9th Senatorial District, the [960]*960appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered August 20, 1992, which, after a hearing, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petitioner’s designating petition was invalid owing to a complete failure to number consecutively the 87 sheets of the petition in compliance with Election Law § 6-134 (2) (see, Matter of Braxton v Mahoney, 63 NY2d 691). None of the sheets were numbered as required by statute (see, Matter of Braxton v Mahoney, supra). Under the circumstances, there was not substantial compliance with the statute (cf., Matter of Rosen v McNab, 25 NY2d 798, 799; Matter of Jonas v Black, 104 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 685; Matter of Frawley v Regan, 77 AD2d 937). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Holster v. Matthews, 185 A.D.2d 959, 587 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

185 A.D.2d 959 (Holster v. Matthews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related