Matter of Gadsen v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Gadsen v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York

440 N.E.2d 1329, 57 N.Y.2d 751, 454 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3674

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 10, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 440 N.E.2d 1329 (Matter of Gadsen v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York) 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 Gadsen v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York, 440 N.E.2d 1329, 57 N.Y.2d 751, 454 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3674 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We agree with Special Term and the Appellate Division that the validation proceeding was jurisdictionally defective because of the candidate’s failure to name and serve all those who filed objections to the designating petition (Matter of Wein v Molinari, 51 NY2d 717; Matter of Cappellazzi v Toto, 41 NY2d 1050). This is not altered by the fact that the attorneys who represented unnamed and unserved parties did appear for them in the invalidation proceeding with which the one to validate was consolidated (Matter of Wein v Molinari, supra). Nor does the stipulation as to the validity and number of signatures constitute a waiver of the jurisdictional point since the stipulation expressly provided that it remained subject to the “claim that there is no jurisdiction over two of the objectors in the validation proceeding”. Accordingly, appellant was left with no procedural vehicle by which to reinstate the signatures held invalid by the board of elections (Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620, 621).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

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.

We agree with Special Term and the Appellate Division that the validation proceeding was jurisdictionally defective because of the candidate’s failure to name and serve all those who filed objections to the designating petition (Matter of Wein v Molinari, 51 NY2d 717; Matter of Cappellazzi v Toto, 41 NY2d 1050). This is not altered by the fact that the attorneys who represented unnamed and unserved parties did appear for them in the invalidation proceeding with which the one to validate was consolidated (Matter of Wein v Molinari, supra). Nor does the stipulation as to the validity and number of signatures constitute a waiver of the jurisdictional point since the stipulation expressly provided that it remained subject to the “claim that there is no jurisdiction over two of the objectors in the validation proceeding”. Accordingly, appellant was left with no procedural vehicle by which to reinstate the signatures held invalid by the board of elections (Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620, 621).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 N.E.2d 1329, 57 N.Y.2d 751, 454 N.Y.S.2d 982, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gadsen-v-bd-of-elections-of-the-city-of-new-york-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack