Lyman v. Lawley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lyman v. Lawley

37 A.D.2d 791, 324 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 791 (Lyman v. Lawley) 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

Lyman v. Lawley, 37 A.D.2d 791, 324 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly restored 74 of the 101 signatures excluded from petitioner’s validating petition by the Board of Elections. The invalidation arose because of the juxtaposition of an address of one subscribing witness, and because the election district of another subscribing witness was incorrectly stated. These defects obviously did not confuse or mislead anyone with respect to the addresses of the subscribing witnesses. (Matter of Molloy v. Lawley, [792]*79232 A D 2d 175, revd. on other grounds 25 N Y 2d 814.) “ In the absence o£ allegations of fraud substantial compliance with the Election Law is sufficient.” (Matter of Rosen v. McNab, 25 N Y 2d 798, 799.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term, validating designating petition.) Present—-Goldman, P. J., Del Veechio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Cardamone, JJ. (Order entered Sept. 9, 1971.)

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly restored 74 of the 101 signatures excluded from petitioner’s validating petition by the Board of Elections. The invalidation arose because of the juxtaposition of an address of one subscribing witness, and because the election district of another subscribing witness was incorrectly stated. These defects obviously did not confuse or mislead anyone with respect to the addresses of the subscribing witnesses. (Matter of Molloy v. Lawley, [792]*79232 A D 2d 175, revd. on other grounds 25 N Y 2d 814.) “ In the absence o£ allegations of fraud substantial compliance with the Election Law is sufficient.” (Matter of Rosen v. McNab, 25 N Y 2d 798, 799.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term, validating designating petition.) Present—-Goldman, P. J., Del Veechio, Witmer, Gabrielli and Cardamone, JJ. (Order entered Sept. 9, 1971.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 791, 324 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyman-v-lawley-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack