Ospelt v. Chetney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ospelt v. Chetney

84 A.D.2d 666, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15786

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A.D.2d 666 (Ospelt v. Chetney) 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

Ospelt v. Chetney, 84 A.D.2d 666, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from an order of Onondaga Supreme Court dismissing petitions in a proceeding to invalidate certificates of nomination designating respondents candidates for various town offices. Petitioners claim that the nominations made by party caucus violated section 6-108 of the Election Law. The petitions were properly dismissed. The party nominations were made in the manner prescribed by the rules of the county committee in compliance with subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 6-108 of the Election Law. We also reject petitioners’ contention that the party membership was excluded from the nominating process since respondents complied with the notice requirements of subdivision 3 of section 6-108. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court, McLaughlin, J. — Election Law.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from an order of Onondaga Supreme Court dismissing petitions in a proceeding to invalidate certificates of nomination designating respondents candidates for various town offices. Petitioners claim that the nominations made by party caucus violated section 6-108 of the Election Law. The petitions were properly dismissed. The party nominations were made in the manner prescribed by the rules of the county committee in compliance with subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 6-108 of the Election Law. We also reject petitioners’ contention that the party membership was excluded from the nominating process since respondents complied with the notice requirements of subdivision 3 of section 6-108. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court, McLaughlin, J. — Election Law.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 666, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ospelt-v-chetney-nyappdiv-1981.