MATTER OF GRANCIO v. Coveney

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF GRANCIO v. Coveney

454 N.E.2d 534, 60 N.Y.2d 603, 467 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3312

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 454 N.E.2d 534 (MATTER OF GRANCIO v. Coveney) 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 GRANCIO v. Coveney, 454 N.E.2d 534, 60 N.Y.2d 603, 467 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3312 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

*605 That the Appellate Division correctly held the rules and regulations of the Conservative Party invalid because inconsistent with section 6-120 of the Election Law is evident from an examination of the provisions of that section. Subdivision 1, which deals with the validity of a primary designating petition for party nomination, states affirmatively that the petition “shall be valid only if the person so designated is an enrolled member of the party”. Subdivision 2, which deals with party designation or nomination by other than petition, states negatively that no such “designation or nomination shall be valid unless the person so designated or nominated shall be an enrolled member of the * * * party”. Each is, however, expressly limited; subdivision 1, by the phrase “except as otherwise herein provided” and subdivision 2, by the phrase “[e]xcept as provided in subdivisions three and four of this section”.

Subdivision 3 validates the designation or nomination of a person not an enrolled member of the party when the appropriate party committee so authorizes. Subdivision 4 by making the entire section inapplicable to designations or nominations of a new political party for the first time, or by party caucus, or for judicial office, validates the designation or nomination of a person not enrolled as a party member for such offices or in such manner without party committee authorization. It follows that the Conservative Party rule which would require party authorization for a judicial nomination is more restrictive than the statute and, therefore, invalid (see Matter of Rosenthal v Harwood, 35 NY2d 469, 475).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

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, without costs.

*605 That the Appellate Division correctly held the rules and regulations of the Conservative Party invalid because inconsistent with section 6-120 of the Election Law is evident from an examination of the provisions of that section. Subdivision 1, which deals with the validity of a primary designating petition for party nomination, states affirmatively that the petition “shall be valid only if the person so designated is an enrolled member of the party”. Subdivision 2, which deals with party designation or nomination by other than petition, states negatively that no such “designation or nomination shall be valid unless the person so designated or nominated shall be an enrolled member of the * * * party”. Each is, however, expressly limited; subdivision 1, by the phrase “except as otherwise herein provided” and subdivision 2, by the phrase “[e]xcept as provided in subdivisions three and four of this section”.

Subdivision 3 validates the designation or nomination of a person not an enrolled member of the party when the appropriate party committee so authorizes. Subdivision 4 by making the entire section inapplicable to designations or nominations of a new political party for the first time, or by party caucus, or for judicial office, validates the designation or nomination of a person not enrolled as a party member for such offices or in such manner without party committee authorization. It follows that the Conservative Party rule which would require party authorization for a judicial nomination is more restrictive than the statute and, therefore, invalid (see Matter of Rosenthal v Harwood, 35 NY2d 469, 475).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 N.E.2d 534, 60 N.Y.2d 603, 467 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-grancio-v-coveney-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack