MATTER OF PLUNKETT v. Mahoney
This text of 76 N.Y.2d 848 (MATTER OF PLUNKETT v. Mahoney) 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.
Opinions
[850]*850OPINION OF THE COURT
Order modified, without costs, by denying the cross petition for the reasons stated in the dissenting in part memorandum by Justices Boomer and Lowery at the Appellate Division (— AD2d —) and, as so modified, affirmed. We add only that failure to timely file a certificate of authorization, which was required in this instance in order for there to be a valid designating petition (Election Law §6-120 [3]), constituted a "fatal defect” under Election Law § 1-106 (2). Moreover, because the petition is void under the statute, the defect cannot be considered merely "technical” (see, Matter of Harden v Board of Elections, 74 NY2d 796).
Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Bellacosa. Judge Hancock, Jr., dissents in part and votes to affirm in a memorandum in which Judge Titone concurs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
76 N.Y.2d 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-plunkett-v-mahoney-ny-1990.