Lathrop v. White

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lathrop v. White

279 A.D. 628, 108 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D. 628 (Lathrop v. White) 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

Lathrop v. White, 279 A.D. 628, 108 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: This proceeding must be held to be brought under the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law, as made applicable by section 144 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. It was not brought within fourteen days after the last date for filing the local option petition and should therefore be dismissed. (Matter of Thompson v. Valentine, 297 N. Y. 105; Matter of Bentley v. Simmons, 251 App. Div. 773.) Even though the proceeding had been brought within the time required by the statute, we agree with the Special Term that the objections raised by the petitioner are unsubstantial technicalities that ought not to deprive the electors of the town of Howard of the right to vote upon the local option question. All concur. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. (Appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application and dismissing the proceeding.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCum, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Memorandum: This proceeding must be held to be brought under the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law, as made applicable by section 144 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. It was not brought within fourteen days after the last date for filing the local option petition and should therefore be dismissed. (Matter of Thompson v. Valentine, 297 N. Y. 105; Matter of Bentley v. Simmons, 251 App. Div. 773.) Even though the proceeding had been brought within the time required by the statute, we agree with the Special Term that the objections raised by the petitioner are unsubstantial technicalities that ought not to deprive the electors of the town of Howard of the right to vote upon the local option question. All concur. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. (Appeal from an order denying petitioner’s application and dismissing the proceeding.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCum, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 628, 108 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lathrop-v-white-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack