Jones v. New York State Board of Elections

New York Court of Appeals

Jones v. New York State Board of Elections

381 N.E.2d 182, 45 N.Y.2d 791, 409 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2222

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 1, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 381 N.E.2d 182 (Jones v. New York State Board of Elections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. New York State Board of Elections, 381 N.E.2d 182, 45 N.Y.2d 791, 409 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2222 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

In each case: Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Albany County, reinstated in the following memorandum: Considering the fact that the applicable statute (Election Law, § 6-132) gives no notice as to the requirements for inclusion in designating petitions where the nomenclature of the local electoral subdivisions is materially different from that employed in the statute, there can be no insistence on literal compliance with the statutory prescrip[793]*793tions. That being so, we conclude that the designating petitions in this instance were in sufficient conformity with the requirements of section 6-132. Obviously, there should be prompt legislative correction of this anomaly, peculiar to one county, by addition of appropriate nomenclature or by exception to the State statute (Election Law, § 4-100).

In Matter of Spaulding v New York State Bd. of Elections: We agree with the Appellate Division that the petition to validate was timely.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

In each case: Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Albany County, reinstated in the following memorandum: Considering the fact that the applicable statute (Election Law, § 6-132) gives no notice as to the requirements for inclusion in designating petitions where the nomenclature of the local electoral subdivisions is materially different from that employed in the statute, there can be no insistence on literal compliance with the statutory prescrip[793]*793tions. That being so, we conclude that the designating petitions in this instance were in sufficient conformity with the requirements of section 6-132. Obviously, there should be prompt legislative correction of this anomaly, peculiar to one county, by addition of appropriate nomenclature or by exception to the State statute (Election Law, § 4-100).

In Matter of Spaulding v New York State Bd. of Elections: We agree with the Appellate Division that the petition to validate was timely.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 N.E.2d 182, 45 N.Y.2d 791, 409 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-new-york-state-board-of-elections-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack