Jacobs v. Ocker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacobs v. Ocker

123 A.D.2d 588, 506 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60738

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 588 (Jacobs v. Ocker) 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

Jacobs v. Ocker, 123 A.D.2d 588, 506 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to direct the respondent Town Clerk of the Town of Oyster Bay to place upon the ballot for the general election to be held on November 4, 1986, a proposition to establish a ward system for the election of councilmen in the Town of Oyster Bay, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated September 30, 1986, which denied the petitioners’ application to direct the respondent members of the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau to place the proposition on the absentee and military ballots.

Ordered, that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application is granted, and the respondent members of the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau are directed to place the proposition in question on the absentee and military ballots.

Without in any way passing upon the merits of the petitioners’ argument that the requested proposition should be placed on the November 4, 1986 general election ballot, we do not perceive any sound reason why the proposition in question should not be placed on the absentee and military ballots about to be mailed by the Board of Elections. Regardless of how the merits of the issue are ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, we discern no possibility of prejudice occurring to anyone as a result of our ruling since, in the event that it is determined that the proposition shall not be submitted to the voters at the November 4 general election, the absentee and military votes of the proposition can be voided. However, it is advisable to avoid any possibility that the absentee and military ballots for the November 4 election might not contain a proposition which may ultimately be placed on the regular ballot. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to direct the respondent Town Clerk of the Town of Oyster Bay to place upon the ballot for the general election to be held on November 4, 1986, a proposition to establish a ward system for the election of councilmen in the Town of Oyster Bay, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), dated September 30, 1986, which denied the petitioners’ application to direct the respondent members of the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau to place the proposition on the absentee and military ballots.

Ordered, that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application is granted, and the respondent members of the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau are directed to place the proposition in question on the absentee and military ballots.

Without in any way passing upon the merits of the petitioners’ argument that the requested proposition should be placed on the November 4, 1986 general election ballot, we do not perceive any sound reason why the proposition in question should not be placed on the absentee and military ballots about to be mailed by the Board of Elections. Regardless of how the merits of the issue are ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, Nassau County, we discern no possibility of prejudice occurring to anyone as a result of our ruling since, in the event that it is determined that the proposition shall not be submitted to the voters at the November 4 general election, the absentee and military votes of the proposition can be voided. However, it is advisable to avoid any possibility that the absentee and military ballots for the November 4 election might not contain a proposition which may ultimately be placed on the regular ballot. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 588, 506 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-ocker-nyappdiv-1986.