Liebler v. Friedman

54 A.D.3d 697, 863 N.Y.S.2d 719
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 4, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 697 (Liebler v. Friedman) 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
Liebler v. Friedman, 54 A.D.3d 697, 863 N.Y.S.2d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate petitions designating Ronald Friedman as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2008, for the nomination of the Conservative, Working Families, and Independence Parties as their candidate for the public office of East Fishkill Town Justice, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated August 8, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The Supreme Court properly validated those signatures which were witnessed by the respondent Ronald Friedman, a notary public, who obtained a statement from each of the signatories affirming the truth of the matter to which they subscribed their names and thereby substantially complied with Election Law § 6-132 (3) (see Matter of Brown v Suffolk County Bd. of Elec[698]*698tions, 264 AD2d 489 [1999]; Matter of Quintyne v Canary, 104 AD2d 473 [1984]). Although the signatories were not asked to “swear,” the notary public administered an oath in a form “calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his religious or ethical beliefs” (CPLR 2309 [b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to invalidate and dismissed the proceeding.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Eng, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Venditto v. Brooks
142 A.D.3d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
MacKenzie v. Ghartey
131 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Fuchs v. Itzkowitz
120 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Finn v. Sherwood
87 A.D.3d 1044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bonner v. Negron
87 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Nolin v. McNally
87 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Kutner v. Nassau County Board of Elections
65 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
LeBron v. Clyne
65 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A.D.3d 697, 863 N.Y.S.2d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebler-v-friedman-nyappdiv-2008.