Moczydlowski v. Westall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moczydlowski v. Westall

275 A.D.2d 1000

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 30, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1000 (Moczydlowski v. Westall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moczydlowski-v-westall-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack