Kornfeld v. Coveney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kornfeld v. Coveney

49 A.D.2d 955, 375 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11251

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 955 (Kornfeld v. Coveney) 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

Kornfeld v. Coveney, 49 A.D.2d 955, 375 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In three consolidated proceedings, one to validate and two to invalidate a petition nominating respondent Kornfeld as the candidate of the Probate Reform Party in the general election to be held on November 4, 1975 for the public office of Surrogate of Suffolk County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered October 27, 1975, which granted the application of respondent Kornfeld, adjudged his nominating petitions valid and denied appellants’ applications. Judgment affirmed, without costs. We have examined the buff cards of Leo Kornfeld, Hilda B. Morris and Cherry Berson and have taken judicial notice of the fact that these persons are enrolled Democrats. In view of the fact that they did not vote in a primary election this year which involved a contest for Surrogate, subdivision 10 of section 138 of the Election Law does not require that their signatures as subscribing witnesses on the nominating petitions of Leo Kornfeld be invalidated. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In three consolidated proceedings, one to validate and two to invalidate a petition nominating respondent Kornfeld as the candidate of the Probate Reform Party in the general election to be held on November 4, 1975 for the public office of Surrogate of Suffolk County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered October 27, 1975, which granted the application of respondent Kornfeld, adjudged his nominating petitions valid and denied appellants’ applications. Judgment affirmed, without costs. We have examined the buff cards of Leo Kornfeld, Hilda B. Morris and Cherry Berson and have taken judicial notice of the fact that these persons are enrolled Democrats. In view of the fact that they did not vote in a primary election this year which involved a contest for Surrogate, subdivision 10 of section 138 of the Election Law does not require that their signatures as subscribing witnesses on the nominating petitions of Leo Kornfeld be invalidated. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 955, 375 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kornfeld-v-coveney-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack