O'Shaughnessy v. Dodd

New York Court of Appeals

O'Shaughnessy v. Dodd

472 N.E.2d 21, 63 N.Y.2d 812, 482 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4636

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 9, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 472 N.E.2d 21 (O'Shaughnessy v. Dodd) 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

O'Shaughnessy v. Dodd, 472 N.E.2d 21, 63 N.Y.2d 812, 482 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4636 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, for the reason stated in the memorandum of that court.

A multiparty candidate has the same right to a drawing for ballot position as does a single party’s nominee (Matter of Wolf v Acito, 42 NY2d 1076). The only time the statutorily granted right to a drawing for ballot position under subdivision 2 of section 7-116 of the Election Law may be refused a candidate is when the exercise of that right might work a displacement on the ballot prejudicial to the candidates of other parties preferred under the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 7-116 of the Election Law (Matter of Cooke v Lomenzo, 31 NY2d 244, 247). Because the drawing by lot directed by the County Board of Elections is to be restricted to the Republican Row B candidates and is [815]*815further restricted so as not to alter the position of the Democratic Row A candidates, it should be allowed to proceed (Matter of Mintz v Cuomo, 45 NY2d 918).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye 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, for the reason stated in the memorandum of that court.

A multiparty candidate has the same right to a drawing for ballot position as does a single party’s nominee (Matter of Wolf v Acito, 42 NY2d 1076). The only time the statutorily granted right to a drawing for ballot position under subdivision 2 of section 7-116 of the Election Law may be refused a candidate is when the exercise of that right might work a displacement on the ballot prejudicial to the candidates of other parties preferred under the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 7-116 of the Election Law (Matter of Cooke v Lomenzo, 31 NY2d 244, 247). Because the drawing by lot directed by the County Board of Elections is to be restricted to the Republican Row B candidates and is [815]*815further restricted so as not to alter the position of the Democratic Row A candidates, it should be allowed to proceed (Matter of Mintz v Cuomo, 45 NY2d 918).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 N.E.2d 21, 63 N.Y.2d 812, 482 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oshaughnessy-v-dodd-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack