Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF OWENS v. Sharpton

MATTER OF OWENS v. Sharpton

381 N.E.2d 160, 45 N.Y.2d 794, 409 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2224
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 1, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 381 N.E.2d 160 (MATTER OF OWENS v. Sharpton) 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 OWENS v. Sharpton, 381 N.E.2d 160, 45 N.Y.2d 794, 409 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2224 (N.Y. 1978).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order insofar as appealed from should be affirmed, without costs. Respondent candidate was disqualified as a candidate in the Democratic primary election for the office of State Senator on a finding that he did not comply with the residency requirements of section 7 of article III of the State Constitution. No challenge was made to the signatures on the designating petitions themselves, and the petitions were validated insofar as they designated a committee to fill vacancies. Special Term declined to find fraudulent design in the residency errors and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. In these circumstances disqualification of a candidate does not invalidate the filed petitions as such in toto, and they remain valid to permit the named committee to fill vacancies *796 to make an appropriate substitution (Election Law, § 6-148, subd 2). Where as here, a candidate is disqualified but there is no finding that either the petition or petition gathering process is tainted by fraud, the committee is empowered to make this substitution (see Matter of Grieco v Bader, 43 Misc 2d 245, affd 21 AD2d 751; Matter of Marley v Hamilton, 55 AD2d 864, mot for lv to app den 40 NY2d 801). Where, on the other hand, the designating petition itself is "invalid”, the result will be different (see Matter of Fotopoulos v Board of Elections, 45 NY2d 807 [decided herewith]).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Motion for leave to appeal granted (August 30, 1978). Order affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Ferrandino v. Sammut
2020 NY Slip Op 4229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Venditto v. Roth
110 A.D.3d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Elgin v. Smith
10 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Espada v. Diaz
778 N.E.2d 546 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Espada v. Diaz
297 A.D.2d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Lawrence v. Spelman
264 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Ramos v. Gomez
196 A.D.2d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Scaringe v. Ackerman
119 A.D.2d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Farley v. Mahoney
130 Misc. 2d 455 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Ernewein v. Pordum
96 A.D.2d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Gonzalez v. Black
89 A.D.2d 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 N.E.2d 160, 45 N.Y.2d 794, 409 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-owens-v-sharpton-ny-1978.