Morell v. Board of Elections

New York Court of Appeals

Morell v. Board of Elections

318 N.E.2d 601, 34 N.Y.2d 968, 360 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1364

DecidedAugust 28, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 318 N.E.2d 601 (Morell v. Board of Elections) 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

Morell v. Board of Elections, 318 N.E.2d 601, 34 N.Y.2d 968, 360 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1364 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The jurisdictional issue based upon improper service is not raised on this appeal. Special Term and the Appellate Division determined the case on the merits and there is no cross appeal [969]*969by objector, as there could not be since the objector was not aggrieved. Hence, this court’s review is limited to the merits, and on the merits, the issue of insufficient valid signatures was properly determined. Even if one were to assume that petitioner Morell was entitled to the additional 66 signatures he claims, he would still fall short of the 1,500 signatures required to be designated as a candidate for Councilman in the primary.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Staley.

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

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The jurisdictional issue based upon improper service is not raised on this appeal. Special Term and the Appellate Division determined the case on the merits and there is no cross appeal [969]*969by objector, as there could not be since the objector was not aggrieved. Hence, this court’s review is limited to the merits, and on the merits, the issue of insufficient valid signatures was properly determined. Even if one were to assume that petitioner Morell was entitled to the additional 66 signatures he claims, he would still fall short of the 1,500 signatures required to be designated as a candidate for Councilman in the primary.

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Staley.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

318 N.E.2d 601, 34 N.Y.2d 968, 360 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morell-v-board-of-elections-ny-1974.