Kurtz v. Town of Amherst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kurtz v. Town of Amherst

244 A.D.2d 895, 665 N.Y.S.2d 129

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 895 (Kurtz v. Town of Amherst) 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

Kurtz v. Town of Amherst, 244 A.D.2d 895, 665 N.Y.S.2d 129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition, found a referendum petition invalid and directed its removal from the ballot. The petition is invalid because the preamble fails to comply with the statutory requirement that the voter state that his “present place of residence is truly stated opposite [his] signature” (Election Law § 6-140 [1] [a]; see, Election Law § 1-102; Town Law § 91; see generally, Matter of Graham v City Clerk of City of Ogdensburg, 104 AD2d 703; Matter of Lindley v Babylon Town Clerk, 80 AD2d 879, affd 53 NY2d 683; Heath v Town of Islip, 169 Misc 2d 382). In light of our decision, we do not reach the par[896]*896ties’ remaining contentions. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J.—Election Law.) Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition, found a referendum petition invalid and directed its removal from the ballot. The petition is invalid because the preamble fails to comply with the statutory requirement that the voter state that his “present place of residence is truly stated opposite [his] signature” (Election Law § 6-140 [1] [a]; see, Election Law § 1-102; Town Law § 91; see generally, Matter of Graham v City Clerk of City of Ogdensburg, 104 AD2d 703; Matter of Lindley v Babylon Town Clerk, 80 AD2d 879, affd 53 NY2d 683; Heath v Town of Islip, 169 Misc 2d 382). In light of our decision, we do not reach the par[896]*896ties’ remaining contentions. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mahoney, J.—Election Law.) Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 895, 665 N.Y.S.2d 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtz-v-town-of-amherst-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack