MATTER OF KRUEGER v. Richards

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF KRUEGER v. Richards

450 N.E.2d 219, 59 N.Y.2d 680, 463 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3061

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 450 N.E.2d 219 (MATTER OF KRUEGER v. Richards) 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 KRUEGER v. Richards, 450 N.E.2d 219, 59 N.Y.2d 680, 463 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3061 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division granting the petition to invalidate the nominating petition should be affirmed.

Respondent brought no petition to validate, which would have required that she specify the signatures which she claimed the board had erroneously invalidated. Instead, after the statutory time period (Election Law, § 16-102, subd 2), shfe served an answer to the petition to invalidate containing an affirmative defense in which she claimed, *683 without specification, that there were sufficient valid signatures to her petition. To permit her to do so would be manifestly unfair (see Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620, 621) because her opponents would thereby be deprived of the full opportunity afforded them by the statute to meet her proof.

The Appellate Division did not err, therefore, in precluding her from relying upon the validity of such unspecified signatures. Nor are there present in this case unique circumstances, such as were present in Matter of Halloway (77 AD2d 932, 933; see Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 NY2d 494). In light of this disposition, we do not reach the substantive issues raised.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur; Judge Fuchsberg 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 granting the petition to invalidate the nominating petition should be affirmed.

Respondent brought no petition to validate, which would have required that she specify the signatures which she claimed the board had erroneously invalidated. Instead, after the statutory time period (Election Law, § 16-102, subd 2), shfe served an answer to the petition to invalidate containing an affirmative defense in which she claimed, *683 without specification, that there were sufficient valid signatures to her petition. To permit her to do so would be manifestly unfair (see Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620, 621) because her opponents would thereby be deprived of the full opportunity afforded them by the statute to meet her proof.

The Appellate Division did not err, therefore, in precluding her from relying upon the validity of such unspecified signatures. Nor are there present in this case unique circumstances, such as were present in Matter of Halloway (77 AD2d 932, 933; see Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 NY2d 494). In light of this disposition, we do not reach the substantive issues raised.

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

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 N.E.2d 219, 59 N.Y.2d 680, 463 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-krueger-v-richards-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack