Matter of Baum

198 N.E. 520, 268 N.Y. 614, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1076
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 9, 1935·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The statements of subscribing witnesses to petitions substantially complied with the provisions of section 135 of the Election Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 17), as amended by chapter 955 of the Laws of 1935. This case differs from Matter of Dorsey v. Cohen (268 N. Y. 620), decided herewith, in that there was no substantial compliance with the statute in the Dorsey case.

The order of the Appellate Division which approved the action of the Election Board in refusing to file such petitions should be reversed and the Election Board directed to file such petitions.

The orders of the Appellate Division in other respects should be affirmed.

*617 The orders should be modified in accordance with this memorandum and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crane, Ch. J., votes to affirm in all particulars.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Matter of Baum, 198 N.E. 520, 268 N.Y. 614, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 1076 (N.Y. 1935).

198 N.E. 520 (Matter of Baum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosenbaum v. Power
43 Misc. 2d 377 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Potash v. Molik
17 A.D.2d 111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Orlando v. Power
24 Misc. 2d 39 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Foote v. Lee
175 Misc. 60 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
In re Marion
174 Misc. 897 (New York Supreme Court, 1940)
Loreto v. Cohen
169 Misc. 410 (New York Supreme Court, 1938)
In re Brickman
248 A.D. 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
In re Wood
247 A.D. 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)