Malave-Dilan v. Muniz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malave-Dilan v. Muniz

253 A.D.2d 505, 676 N.Y.S.2d 869

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

DecidedAugust 18, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 505 (Malave-Dilan v. Muniz) 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

Malave-Dilan v. Muniz, 253 A.D.2d 505, 676 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In related proceedings to validate and invalidate a petition designating Jose L. Muniz as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1998, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 54th Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated August 13, 1998, which, after a hearing, granted the petition to invalidate and dismissed the petition to validate.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition to invalidate is dismissed, and the petition to validate is granted.

We conclude that the burden of proving that the challenged subscribing witness, Melida Kennedy, no longer resided at the address listed in her statement in the designating petition at the time she signed that statement was not sustained (see, Matter of Iaboni v Sunderland, 175 AD2d 893; Matter of Boyland v Board of Elections, 104 AD2d 463). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In related proceedings to validate and invalidate a petition designating Jose L. Muniz as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1998, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 54th Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated August 13, 1998, which, after a hearing, granted the petition to invalidate and dismissed the petition to validate.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition to invalidate is dismissed, and the petition to validate is granted.

We conclude that the burden of proving that the challenged subscribing witness, Melida Kennedy, no longer resided at the address listed in her statement in the designating petition at the time she signed that statement was not sustained (see, Matter of Iaboni v Sunderland, 175 AD2d 893; Matter of Boyland v Board of Elections, 104 AD2d 463). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 505, 676 N.Y.S.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malave-dilan-v-muniz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack