Ike v. Di Pronio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ike v. Di Pronio

96 A.D.2d 1134, 467 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19803

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 1, 1983·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum. Section 6-130 of the Election Law requires each signer of a designating petition to provide his “residence address.” Although we agree with petitioner that a post-office box number is not a residence address as required by the statute, the designating petition contains the required number of signatures after invalidation of the signatures providing only the post-office box number. (Appeal from order of Seneca Supreme Court, Henry, J. — Election Law.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Denman, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum. Section 6-130 of the Election Law requires each signer of a designating petition to provide his “residence address.” Although we agree with petitioner that a post-office box number is not a residence address as required by the statute, the designating petition contains the required number of signatures after invalidation of the signatures providing only the post-office box number. (Appeal from order of Seneca Supreme Court, Henry, J. — Election Law.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Denman, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Ike v. Di Pronio, 96 A.D.2d 1134, 467 N.Y.S.2d 455, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

96 A.D.2d 1134 (Ike v. Di Pronio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related