Lamula v. Power

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamula v. Power

19 A.D.2d 780, 242 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252

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

DecidedAugust 28, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 780 (Lamula v. Power) 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

Lamula v. Power, 19 A.D.2d 780, 242 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered August 27, 1963 . sustaining special appearance of objectors and denying application, unanimously affirmed, without costs. There was a failure to join the objectors as parties and serve them as such. There was a complete failure to serve one of the two objectors, and the other -was served in another capacity. Indeed, the order to show cause mistakenly was drafted to direct service not on the objectors, service being directed to be made on the Committee on Vacancies. It was mere coincidence that one of the committee was also one of the objectors. The Election Law requirements are strict as to service and joinder of'indispensable parties. (See Matter of Swan v. Cohen, 179 Mise. 69, affd. 262 App. Div. 956, affd. 286 N. Y. 678.) This is unfortunate in a case where actual notice was received by the parties affected, but traditional interpretation offers insufficient leeway. [781]*781Despite the practical disenfranchisement, the order must be affirmed; but leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted. Concur —Botein, P, J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered August 27, 1963 . sustaining special appearance of objectors and denying application, unanimously affirmed, without costs. There was a failure to join the objectors as parties and serve them as such. There was a complete failure to serve one of the two objectors, and the other -was served in another capacity. Indeed, the order to show cause mistakenly was drafted to direct service not on the objectors, service being directed to be made on the Committee on Vacancies. It was mere coincidence that one of the committee was also one of the objectors. The Election Law requirements are strict as to service and joinder of'indispensable parties. (See Matter of Swan v. Cohen, 179 Mise. 69, affd. 262 App. Div. 956, affd. 286 N. Y. 678.) This is unfortunate in a case where actual notice was received by the parties affected, but traditional interpretation offers insufficient leeway. [781]*781Despite the practical disenfranchisement, the order must be affirmed; but leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted. Concur —Botein, P, J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 780, 242 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamula-v-power-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack