Locascio v. Feuer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Locascio v. Feuer

45 A.D.2d 937, 358 N.Y.S.2d 951

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

DecidedAugust 26, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 937 (Locascio v. Feuer) 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

Locascio v. Feuer, 45 A.D.2d 937, 358 N.Y.S.2d 951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on August 20, 1974, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and respondent Board of Elections directed to accept the petition. There is insufficient evidence to overcome the rule that a public officer, here the notary public, has performed a duty imposed by law. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.; Murphy, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I would affirm. Section 135 of thp Election Law establishes the form that a notary public must use as opposed io other subscribing witnesses. None of the 19 witnesses who testified at the herring presented any evidence of compliance with the statute nor was the notary produced to testify to adherence to said statute. On this record the referee and Special Term’s findings should be sustained. (Matter of Donnelly v. Dowd, 17 A D 2d 712, affd. 12 N Y 2d 651.)

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on August 20, 1974, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and without disbursements, and respondent Board of Elections directed to accept the petition. There is insufficient evidence to overcome the rule that a public officer, here the notary public, has performed a duty imposed by law. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.; Murphy, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I would affirm. Section 135 of thp Election Law establishes the form that a notary public must use as opposed io other subscribing witnesses. None of the 19 witnesses who testified at the herring presented any evidence of compliance with the statute nor was the notary produced to testify to adherence to said statute. On this record the referee and Special Term’s findings should be sustained. (Matter of Donnelly v. Dowd, 17 A D 2d 712, affd. 12 N Y 2d 651.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 937, 358 N.Y.S.2d 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/locascio-v-feuer-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack