Mastrantone v. Chirico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mastrantone v. Chirico

87 A.D.3d 645, 928 N.Y.2d 465

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 645 (Mastrantone v. Chirico) 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

Mastrantone v. Chirico, 87 A.D.3d 645, 928 N.Y.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention on appeal, the Supreme Court properly determined that the signatures of several voters on his designating petition were invalid since those voters previously had signed the designating petition of another candidate for the same public office (see Election Law § 6-134 [3]; Matter of Ehrlich v Biamonte, 65 AD3d 990 [2009]; Matter of Venuti v Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 AD3d 482, 484 [2007]; Matter of Rabadi v Galan, 307 AD2d 1014 [2003]). Consequently, the petitioner’s designating petition did not contain the required number of valid signatures (see Election Law § 6-136 [2]; Matter of Ehrlich v Biamonte, 65 AD3d at 990; Matter of James v New York City Bd. of Elections, 21 AD3d 507 [2005]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P, Covello, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention on appeal, the Supreme Court properly determined that the signatures of several voters on his designating petition were invalid since those voters previously had signed the designating petition of another candidate for the same public office (see Election Law § 6-134 [3]; Matter of Ehrlich v Biamonte, 65 AD3d 990 [2009]; Matter of Venuti v Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 AD3d 482, 484 [2007]; Matter of Rabadi v Galan, 307 AD2d 1014 [2003]). Consequently, the petitioner’s designating petition did not contain the required number of valid signatures (see Election Law § 6-136 [2]; Matter of Ehrlich v Biamonte, 65 AD3d at 990; Matter of James v New York City Bd. of Elections, 21 AD3d 507 [2005]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P, Covello, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 645, 928 N.Y.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastrantone-v-chirico-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack