MATTER OF WEIN v. Molinari

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WEIN v. Molinari

410 N.E.2d 1229, 51 N.Y.2d 717, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2583

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 28, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 410 N.E.2d 1229 (MATTER OF WEIN v. Molinari) 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 WEIN v. Molinari, 410 N.E.2d 1229, 51 N.Y.2d 717, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2583 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Messrs. Molinari, Thompson, Hart and Petrides filed objections to appellant’s nominating petition which were upheld by the Board of Elections. In his subsequent special proceeding to validate his petition, appellant named and served only Molinari and Thompson. Accordingly his proceeding was fatally defective for failure to. name and serve Messrs. Hart and Petrides (Matter of Cappellazzi v Toto, 41 NY2d 1050).

*719 It is irrelevant that Hart had not joined in the counterpart proceeding to invalidate appellant’s nominating petition; the necessity for making him a party to the validation proceeding stemmed from his status as an objector. Nor was the deficiency of parties respondent remedied by the circumstance that the attorney for Molinari and Thompson may also have been attorney for Hart and Petrides. It cannot be successfully contended that Hart and Petrides were brought into the proceeding in consequence of this attorney’s admission of service of the order to show cause instituting the validation proceeding; that admission of service, indorsed on the original order to show cause, is expressly limited to the named respondents, Molinari and Thompson.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

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 should be affirmed, without costs.

Messrs. Molinari, Thompson, Hart and Petrides filed objections to appellant’s nominating petition which were upheld by the Board of Elections. In his subsequent special proceeding to validate his petition, appellant named and served only Molinari and Thompson. Accordingly his proceeding was fatally defective for failure to. name and serve Messrs. Hart and Petrides (Matter of Cappellazzi v Toto, 41 NY2d 1050).

*719 It is irrelevant that Hart had not joined in the counterpart proceeding to invalidate appellant’s nominating petition; the necessity for making him a party to the validation proceeding stemmed from his status as an objector. Nor was the deficiency of parties respondent remedied by the circumstance that the attorney for Molinari and Thompson may also have been attorney for Hart and Petrides. It cannot be successfully contended that Hart and Petrides were brought into the proceeding in consequence of this attorney’s admission of service of the order to show cause instituting the validation proceeding; that admission of service, indorsed on the original order to show cause, is expressly limited to the named respondents, Molinari and Thompson.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 N.E.2d 1229, 51 N.Y.2d 717, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wein-v-molinari-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack