Hulse v. Millspaugh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hulse v. Millspaugh

42 A.D.2d 1000, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3427

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 1000 (Hulse v. Millspaugh) 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

Hulse v. Millspaugh, 42 A.D.2d 1000, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at a Trial Term, entered on October 5, 1973 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law, to correct their nominating certificate nunc pro tune and compel respondents to accept same for filing. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Although we are affirming, we would note that had petitioners’ proceeding been timely commenced, they should have been allowed to correct the defect in their certificate of nomination by filing the required affidavit and acknowledgement nunc pro tune to the date of filing of the original certificate. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at a Trial Term, entered on October 5, 1973 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law, to correct their nominating certificate nunc pro tune and compel respondents to accept same for filing. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Although we are affirming, we would note that had petitioners’ proceeding been timely commenced, they should have been allowed to correct the defect in their certificate of nomination by filing the required affidavit and acknowledgement nunc pro tune to the date of filing of the original certificate. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 1000, 348 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulse-v-millspaugh-nyappdiv-1973.