Kurtzberg v. Mastroianni

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kurtzberg v. Mastroianni

262 A.D.2d 485, 691 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6659

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 485 (Kurtzberg v. Mastroianni) 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

Kurtzberg v. Mastroianni, 262 A.D.2d 485, 691 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16, inter alia, to declare the election of the respondent Anthony Mastroianni as Chairman of the Huntington Town Republican Committee void and of no effect, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated November 23, 1998, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 304 (see, CPLR 304; Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714; Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327; Matter of Carnese v Ferraro, 218 AD2d 770).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16, inter alia, to declare the election of the respondent Anthony Mastroianni as Chairman of the Huntington Town Republican Committee void and of no effect, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated November 23, 1998, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of CPLR 304 (see, CPLR 304; Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714; Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327; Matter of Carnese v Ferraro, 218 AD2d 770).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 485, 691 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kurtzberg-v-mastroianni-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack