In Re Petition Purporting to Nominate Hylan

New York Court of Appeals

In Re Petition Purporting to Nominate Hylan

193 N.E. 342, 265 N.Y. 607, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1206

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 31, 1934·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Considering the fact that this is a summary proceeding, where prompt action is necessary, we find no question of law is presented which requires reversal. (Election Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 17], §§ 330, 335.)

The Supreme Court made “ such order as justice may require,” within the contemplation of the Election Law. (§ 330.) To order a new trial at this time for technical errors not affecting substantial rights would be a futility.

The order should be affirmed.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch and Loughran, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not sitting..

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Considering the fact that this is a summary proceeding, where prompt action is necessary, we find no question of law is presented which requires reversal. (Election Law [Cons. Laws, ch. 17], §§ 330, 335.)

The Supreme Court made “ such order as justice may require,” within the contemplation of the Election Law. (§ 330.) To order a new trial at this time for technical errors not affecting substantial rights would be a futility.

The order should be affirmed.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch and Loughran, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not sitting..

Order affirmed.

In Re Petition Purporting to Nominate Hylan, 193 N.E. 342, 265 N.Y. 607, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1206 (N.Y. 1934).

Pincite

193 N.E. 342 (In Re Petition Purporting to Nominate Hylan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related