Moczydlowski v. Westall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moczydlowski v. Westall

275 A.D.2d 1000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 30, 1949·Published

Opinion

The alteration made in the designating petition was not substantial in character. Concededly no fraud was involved and the voters who signed the petition obviously intended to designate petitioner as a candidate for nomination for the office of councilman. On the conceded facts, the alteration in question was made before the petition passed out of the control of the notary public who took the acknowledgment. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and Mae-Crate, JJ., concur. [195 Misc. 839.]

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

The alteration made in the designating petition was not substantial in character. Concededly no fraud was involved and the voters who signed the petition obviously intended to designate petitioner as a candidate for nomination for the office of councilman. On the conceded facts, the alteration in question was made before the petition passed out of the control of the notary public who took the acknowledgment. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and Mae-Crate, JJ., concur. [195 Misc. 839.]

Moczydlowski v. Westall, 275 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 1000 (Moczydlowski v. Westall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related