Parrilla v. Kremar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parrilla v. Kremar

64 A.D.2d 942, 408 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12852

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

DecidedAugust 25, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 942 (Parrilla v. Kremar) 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

Parrilla v. Kremar, 64 A.D.2d 942, 408 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to invalidate the petition designating certain of the appellants as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1978, for the party position of County Committeeman from the 50th Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 22, 1978, which, inter alia, invalidated the designating petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term properly invalidated the designating petition because the names of the candidates had been placed on the petition without their consent (see Richardson v Luizzo, 64 AD2d 942). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Shapiro and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding, inter alia, to invalidate the petition designating certain of the appellants as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1978, for the party position of County Committeeman from the 50th Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 22, 1978, which, inter alia, invalidated the designating petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term properly invalidated the designating petition because the names of the candidates had been placed on the petition without their consent (see Richardson v Luizzo, 64 AD2d 942). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Damiani, Shapiro and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 942, 408 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrilla-v-kremar-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack