Loeb v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loeb v. Rivera

196 A.D.2d 617, 601 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8160

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

DecidedAugust 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 617 (Loeb v. Rivera) 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

Loeb v. Rivera, 196 A.D.2d 617, 601 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Migdalia Rivera as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 1993, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council from the 38th Council District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [618]*618County (Garry, J.), dated August 16, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in Matter of Feldman v Gold (196 AD2d 611 [decided herewith]). We note that at the Supreme Court, in a proceeding by Migdalia Rivera to invalidate McCabe’s own designating position, the petitioner Joan Griffin McCabe took a contrary position with respect to the effect of the failure of subscribing witnesses to include the words "Brooklyn, New York” after the witnesses’ correctly-stated street and house number (see, Matter of Rivera v McCabe, Kings County, index No. 24779/93). Therefore, she is barred by the doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions from her present challenge against the candidacy of Migdalia Rivera. Although the petitioner Susan Loeb was not barred from raising this contention with respect to the alleged defect in the subscribing witnesses’ statements, we reject it on the merits. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Migdalia Rivera as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 1993, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council from the 38th Council District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [618]*618County (Garry, J.), dated August 16, 1993, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in Matter of Feldman v Gold (196 AD2d 611 [decided herewith]). We note that at the Supreme Court, in a proceeding by Migdalia Rivera to invalidate McCabe’s own designating position, the petitioner Joan Griffin McCabe took a contrary position with respect to the effect of the failure of subscribing witnesses to include the words "Brooklyn, New York” after the witnesses’ correctly-stated street and house number (see, Matter of Rivera v McCabe, Kings County, index No. 24779/93). Therefore, she is barred by the doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions from her present challenge against the candidacy of Migdalia Rivera. Although the petitioner Susan Loeb was not barred from raising this contention with respect to the alleged defect in the subscribing witnesses’ statements, we reject it on the merits. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 617, 601 N.Y.S.2d 706, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loeb-v-rivera-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack