Jannaccio v. Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jannaccio v. Board of Elections

297 A.D.2d 355, 746 N.Y.2d 408, 746 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8029

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

DecidedAugust 21, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 355 (Jannaccio v. Board of Elections) 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

Jannaccio v. Board of Elections, 297 A.D.2d 355, 746 N.Y.2d 408, 746 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, their petition to validate was insufficiently pleaded as a matter of law. Such a validating petition must specify the individual determinations by the Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) that the candidate claims were erroneous, or the signatures that the candidate claims the Board improperly invalidated (see Matter of Krueger v Richards, 59 NY2d 680, 682; Matter of Green v Mahr, 231 AD2d 480). Since the appellants’ validating petition was not sufficiently particularized to give the Supreme Court and the parties notice of the Board’s determinations which were claimed to be erroneous or the signatures that the candidates claimed were improperly invalidated (see CPLR 3013), it was properly denied by the Supreme Court (see Matter of Green v Mahr, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, their petition to validate was insufficiently pleaded as a matter of law. Such a validating petition must specify the individual determinations by the Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) that the candidate claims were erroneous, or the signatures that the candidate claims the Board improperly invalidated (see Matter of Krueger v Richards, 59 NY2d 680, 682; Matter of Green v Mahr, 231 AD2d 480). Since the appellants’ validating petition was not sufficiently particularized to give the Supreme Court and the parties notice of the Board’s determinations which were claimed to be erroneous or the signatures that the candidates claimed were improperly invalidated (see CPLR 3013), it was properly denied by the Supreme Court (see Matter of Green v Mahr, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 355, 746 N.Y.2d 408, 746 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jannaccio-v-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack