Jacobson v. Schermerhorn

104 A.D.2d 534, 479 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19957
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 23, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 534 (Jacobson v. Schermerhorn) 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
Jacobson v. Schermerhorn, 104 A.D.2d 534, 479 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Conway, J.), entered August 20,1984 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to [535]*535section 16-102 of the Election Law, to declare invalid the designating petition naming respondent Richard E. Schermerhorn as a Conservative Party candidate for the office of State Senator from the 39th Senatorial District in the September 11, 1984 election.

Respondent Schermerhorn timely filed a 17-page petition designating him as a candidate for the Conservative Party nomination for State Senator from the 39th Senatorial District. Although the top of each of the 17 pages of the petition indicates that the office being sought is “Member of State Senate from the 39th Senatorial District State of New York”, the cover sheet required for the petition listed the office as “39th Senatorial District”. After being challenged on various grounds, the designating petition was ruled invalid by Special Term on the basis that it failed to comply with the requirement of subdivision 2 of section 6-134 of the Election Law that the cover sheet “indicate the office for which each destination and nomination is being made”.

We agree. Since both delegates to a State constitutional convention (NY Const, art XIX, § 2) and State Senators are elected from State senatorial districts, it cannot be said that the description of the office which appeared on the cover sheet was incapable of confusing or deceiving the Board of Elections with whom it would be filed (see Matter of Denn v Mahoney, 64 AD2d 1007). Special Term’s judgment invalidating the designating petition must, accordingly, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Fochtman v. Coll
2017 NY Slip Op 6414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Bragman v. Larsen
2017 NY Slip Op 6267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Hayes v. New York State Board of Elections
32 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bliss v. Nobles
297 A.D.2d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dunlea v. New York State Board of Elections
275 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Liepshutz v. Palmateer
112 A.D.2d 1101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 A.D.2d 534, 479 N.Y.S.2d 586, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobson-v-schermerhorn-nyappdiv-1984.