Knauf v. Conlon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knauf v. Conlon

37 A.D.2d 784, 324 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 784 (Knauf v. Conlon) 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

Knauf v. Conlon, 37 A.D.2d 784, 324 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Broome County, which, in a proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law, sustained the reje_c£ion of a designating petition for lack of a sufficient number of valid signatures. Petitioner filed a designating petition for nomination as the Republican Party candidate for the office of County Clerk of Broome County containing 1,272 signatures. Upon objections filed by respondent Davis, the Board of Elections struck 301 signatures and rejected the petition as insufficient (Election Law, § 136, subd. 6, par. [e]). Upon the hearing upon petitioner’s application to review the board’s decision, counsel stipulated that 271 signatures were invalid. Special Term found that an additional 12 signatures were invalid for noncompliance with section 135 of the Election Law and sustained the rejection of the designating petition. The board has cross-appealed from so much of the judgment as validated 18 signatures rejected by them. We concur with Special Term’s finding that pages containing 12 of the disputed signatures were not executed or authenticated in substantial compliance with the provisions of subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 135 of the Election Law with the result that the designating petition is insufficient and, accordingly, affirm the judgment dismissing the petition herein. We do not reach the issues raised by cross appellants. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

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

Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Broome County, which, in a proceeding under section 330 of the Election Law, sustained the reje_c£ion of a designating petition for lack of a sufficient number of valid signatures. Petitioner filed a designating petition for nomination as the Republican Party candidate for the office of County Clerk of Broome County containing 1,272 signatures. Upon objections filed by respondent Davis, the Board of Elections struck 301 signatures and rejected the petition as insufficient (Election Law, § 136, subd. 6, par. [e]). Upon the hearing upon petitioner’s application to review the board’s decision, counsel stipulated that 271 signatures were invalid. Special Term found that an additional 12 signatures were invalid for noncompliance with section 135 of the Election Law and sustained the rejection of the designating petition. The board has cross-appealed from so much of the judgment as validated 18 signatures rejected by them. We concur with Special Term’s finding that pages containing 12 of the disputed signatures were not executed or authenticated in substantial compliance with the provisions of subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 135 of the Election Law with the result that the designating petition is insufficient and, accordingly, affirm the judgment dismissing the petition herein. We do not reach the issues raised by cross appellants. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 784, 324 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knauf-v-conlon-nyappdiv-1971.