MATTER OF FINNERAN v. Hayduk

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF FINNERAN v. Hayduk

381 N.E.2d 161, 45 N.Y.2d 797, 409 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2226

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 1, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 381 N.E.2d 161 (MATTER OF FINNERAN v. Hayduk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF FINNERAN v. Hayduk, 381 N.E.2d 161, 45 N.Y.2d 797, 409 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2226 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Subdivision 1 of section 6-132 of the Election Law provides that a candidate must state his place of residence on the designating petition. Here, with respect to his place of residence, the appellant listed Scarsdale on sheets 1 through 11 and Greenburgh on sheets 12 through 15. In fact as the trial court found, the appellant resides within the Town of Green-burgh and not within the Town of Scarsdale, two separate nonoverlapping municipalities. There is no indication on the record before us that appellant ever resided in the Town of Scarsdale (cf. Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, 45 NY2d 707. Thus the Appellate Division was correct in holding that sheets 1 through 11 were invalid.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

*799 Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Subdivision 1 of section 6-132 of the Election Law provides that a candidate must state his place of residence on the designating petition. Here, with respect to his place of residence, the appellant listed Scarsdale on sheets 1 through 11 and Greenburgh on sheets 12 through 15. In fact as the trial court found, the appellant resides within the Town of Green-burgh and not within the Town of Scarsdale, two separate nonoverlapping municipalities. There is no indication on the record before us that appellant ever resided in the Town of Scarsdale (cf. Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, 45 NY2d 707. Thus the Appellate Division was correct in holding that sheets 1 through 11 were invalid.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

*799 Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 N.E.2d 161, 45 N.Y.2d 797, 409 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-finneran-v-hayduk-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack