Matter of Holley (Rittenberg)

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Holley (Rittenberg)

198 N.E. 232, 268 N.Y. 484, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 964

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 22, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 198 N.E. 232 (Matter of Holley (Rittenberg)) 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 Holley (Rittenberg), 198 N.E. 232, 268 N.Y. 484, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 964 (N.Y. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

*487 Per Curiam.

The Legislature by section 330 of the Election Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 17), has conferred upon the Supreme Court broad power to determine “ any question * ⅜ ⅜ arising * ⅝ * [and] make such order as justice may require ” in respect to the matters enumerated in the succeeding subdivisions of that section. The field of its powers is limited to the specified matters; within that field the power is plenary. Among the matters specified in respect to which this plenary power has been granted is “ the nomination of any candidate.” (Subd. 2.) The provision in the same subdivision that “ the court may direct a re-assembling of any convention or the holding of a new primary election where a convention or primary election has been characterized by such frauds or irregularities as to render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was nominated or elected,” is not a limitation on the plenary power of the court to make such order as justice may require in respect to the nomination of a candidate where a determination as to who rightfully was nominated is not impossible. The cases in which this court has held that no order for a general recount or recanvass of the votes may be ordered did not concern the nomination of candidates, but their election to office, in respect to which the statute has not given plenary power to the court.

The consent of the respondent to the entry of orders for re-examination of ballot boxes cures irregularities, if any, in the application of the appellant, Holley. That consent could not be withdrawn after both sides had acted upon it. We do not decide whether a recount of all the boxes should have been made if the respondent, berg, had made timely demand.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the orders of the Special Term affirmed, without costs.

Crane, Ch. L, Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crouch, J., not sitting.

Ordered accordingly.

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

*487 Per Curiam.

The Legislature by section 330 of the Election Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 17), has conferred upon the Supreme Court broad power to determine “ any question * ⅜ ⅜ arising * ⅝ * [and] make such order as justice may require ” in respect to the matters enumerated in the succeeding subdivisions of that section. The field of its powers is limited to the specified matters; within that field the power is plenary. Among the matters specified in respect to which this plenary power has been granted is “ the nomination of any candidate.” (Subd. 2.) The provision in the same subdivision that “ the court may direct a re-assembling of any convention or the holding of a new primary election where a convention or primary election has been characterized by such frauds or irregularities as to render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was nominated or elected,” is not a limitation on the plenary power of the court to make such order as justice may require in respect to the nomination of a candidate where a determination as to who rightfully was nominated is not impossible. The cases in which this court has held that no order for a general recount or recanvass of the votes may be ordered did not concern the nomination of candidates, but their election to office, in respect to which the statute has not given plenary power to the court.

The consent of the respondent to the entry of orders for re-examination of ballot boxes cures irregularities, if any, in the application of the appellant, Holley. That consent could not be withdrawn after both sides had acted upon it. We do not decide whether a recount of all the boxes should have been made if the respondent, berg, had made timely demand.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the orders of the Special Term affirmed, without costs.

Crane, Ch. L, Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crouch, J., not sitting.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.E. 232, 268 N.Y. 484, 1935 N.Y. LEXIS 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-holley-rittenberg-ny-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack