O'Toole v. D'Apice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Toole v. D'Apice

112 A.D.2d 1078, 493 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52286

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 22, 1985·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Edward J. Fagan, Jr., as a candidate in the Republican and Conservative Party primary elections to be held on September 10, 1985 for the public office of Council-member from the 10th Ward of the City of Yonkers, New York, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), dated August 2, 1985, which granted the respondent candidate’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for legal insufficiency.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term correctly granted a motion by the respondent candidate to dismiss the proceeding. As noted by Special Term, petitioner’s application contained a "blunderbuss charge” which failed to set forth any facts which would place respondent candidate on notice of irregularities or errors in the designating petition (see, Matter of Cohen v Moss, 97 AD2d 644; Matter of Reich v Power, 30 AD2d 925, affd 22 NY2d 887).

In any event, even if we were disposed to examine the merits of petitioner’s objections to the designating petition, we would be unable to do so since petitioner has failed to provide the court with the designating petition. Brown, J. P., O’Con-nor, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Edward J. Fagan, Jr., as a candidate in the Republican and Conservative Party primary elections to be held on September 10, 1985 for the public office of Council-member from the 10th Ward of the City of Yonkers, New York, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), dated August 2, 1985, which granted the respondent candidate’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for legal insufficiency.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term correctly granted a motion by the respondent candidate to dismiss the proceeding. As noted by Special Term, petitioner’s application contained a "blunderbuss charge” which failed to set forth any facts which would place respondent candidate on notice of irregularities or errors in the designating petition (see, Matter of Cohen v Moss, 97 AD2d 644; Matter of Reich v Power, 30 AD2d 925, affd 22 NY2d 887).

In any event, even if we were disposed to examine the merits of petitioner’s objections to the designating petition, we would be unable to do so since petitioner has failed to provide the court with the designating petition. Brown, J. P., O’Con-nor, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

O'Toole v. D'Apice, 112 A.D.2d 1078, 493 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

112 A.D.2d 1078 (O'Toole v. D'Apice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related