Manz v. Lawley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manz v. Lawley

21 A.D.2d 750, 250 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3703

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

DecidedMay 26, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 A.D.2d 750 (Manz 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

Manz v. Lawley, 21 A.D.2d 750, 250 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The appellant was an indispensable party to the proceeding (Matter of Maniscalco v. Power, 4 A D 2d 479, affd. 3 N Y 2d 918). He was not served in the time required by subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law. The service by mail although permitted by the order to show cause could not extend the time for commencing the proceeding and was therefore ineffectual. (Matter of King v. Cohen, 293 N. Y. 435.) Thus the court was without jurisdiction in the proceeding. (Matter of Ullman v. Power, 17 A D 2d 792, affd. 12 N Y 2d 724.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term adjudging the nominating petition valid, etc.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to any party, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The appellant was an indispensable party to the proceeding (Matter of Maniscalco v. Power, 4 A D 2d 479, affd. 3 N Y 2d 918). He was not served in the time required by subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law. The service by mail although permitted by the order to show cause could not extend the time for commencing the proceeding and was therefore ineffectual. (Matter of King v. Cohen, 293 N. Y. 435.) Thus the court was without jurisdiction in the proceeding. (Matter of Ullman v. Power, 17 A D 2d 792, affd. 12 N Y 2d 724.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term adjudging the nominating petition valid, etc.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 750, 250 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manz-v-lawley-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack