MATTER OF McGLYNN v. Dixon

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF McGLYNN v. Dixon

138 N.E.2d 220, 2 N.Y.2d 68, 156 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 671

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 19, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 N.E.2d 220 (MATTER OF McGLYNN v. Dixon) 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 McGLYNN v. Dixon, 138 N.E.2d 220, 2 N.Y.2d 68, 156 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 671 (N.Y. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

*71 Per Curiam.

Sections 14 and 15 of tbe Election Law confer power upon the county committee to adopt rules in regard to tbe creation and selection of members of tbe county executive committee. No question has been raised that tbe 1956 Rules of tbe Queens County Democratic Committee were validly adopted. These rules continue tbe pattern introduced in 1954 of choosing executive committee members from what are denominated executive districts into which tbe Assembly Districts in tbe county are subdivided. Tbe order of tbe Appellate Division, affirming that of Special Term, involved a finding of fact that tbe boundaries of tbe 7th Executive District in tbe 4th Assembly District, Queens County, bad been defined and proclaimed with sufficient certainty to be ratified and confirmed by rule VIII, adopted in 1956. Appellants’ contention that rule VII violates section 12 of tbe Election Law was not raised at tbe Appellate Division. However, to meet that contention, respondents have conceded that no county committee member elected from an election district within a particular executive district, is to be disqualified from voting for a member of tbe executive committee in that executive district by reason of bis residence in tbe same Assembly District outside of tbe said executive district. So construed, we find no objection to tbe rule challenged. Tbe order appealed from should be affirmed.

Conway, Cb. J., Desmond, Dye, Fttld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

*71 Per Curiam.

Sections 14 and 15 of tbe Election Law confer power upon the county committee to adopt rules in regard to tbe creation and selection of members of tbe county executive committee. No question has been raised that tbe 1956 Rules of tbe Queens County Democratic Committee were validly adopted. These rules continue tbe pattern introduced in 1954 of choosing executive committee members from what are denominated executive districts into which tbe Assembly Districts in tbe county are subdivided. Tbe order of tbe Appellate Division, affirming that of Special Term, involved a finding of fact that tbe boundaries of tbe 7th Executive District in tbe 4th Assembly District, Queens County, bad been defined and proclaimed with sufficient certainty to be ratified and confirmed by rule VIII, adopted in 1956. Appellants’ contention that rule VII violates section 12 of tbe Election Law was not raised at tbe Appellate Division. However, to meet that contention, respondents have conceded that no county committee member elected from an election district within a particular executive district, is to be disqualified from voting for a member of tbe executive committee in that executive district by reason of bis residence in tbe same Assembly District outside of tbe said executive district. So construed, we find no objection to tbe rule challenged. Tbe order appealed from should be affirmed.

Conway, Cb. J., Desmond, Dye, Fttld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E.2d 220, 2 N.Y.2d 68, 156 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mcglynn-v-dixon-ny-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack