In re Carter

119 Misc. 258
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 Misc. 258 (In re Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Carter, 119 Misc. 258 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1922).

Opinion

Lewis, J.

This is an application to restrain the board of elections from printing the name of Loring M. Black, Jr., as a candidate for congress, upon the ground that the designating petitions do not comply with section 135 of the Election Law.

The section, after setting forth that the designating petition shall be “ in substantially the following form,” provides: Appended to the petition and filed therewith, shall be the affidavit of one of the signers to the petition, or of a member of the committee to fill vacancies, that he communicated personally or by mail or by telephone or telegraph, as the case may be, with the person designated for the office or party position and that such person then expressly consented to be designated for such office or position; and such an affidavit shall be so appended and filed as to each candidate named in the petition.”

The designating petition had appended an affidavit stating “ that I have communicated with the persons designated for public office as provided in section 135 of the Election Law, and that such persons expressly consented to be designated for such public office.” It is undisputed that in fact communication was had and consent of the designee obtained.

It is now urged that the failure to state in what way the communication was had renders the petition defective. This section was undoubtedly framed to prevent the abuse which had existed in naming persons for public office without obtaining their consent. The omission to state the method of communication may be and should be disregarded in the interests of justice under the provisions of the Election Law. The statement that the candidate or designee had been communicated with and had consented seems a sufficient compliance. It is not such a substantial or vital omission which would justify the rejection of the petition. Application denied.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Related

Arens v. Shainswit
37 A.D.2d 274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 Misc. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carter-nysupct-1922.