Pataki v. Hayduk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pataki v. Hayduk

55 A.D.2d 861, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15683

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

DecidedAugust 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 861 (Pataki v. Hayduk) 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

Pataki v. Hayduk, 55 A.D.2d 861, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to enjoin the respondent Board of Elections of the County of Westchester from placing the name of appellant Joan P. Allgaier on the ballot as a candidate in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 14, 1976 for the public office of State Senator, 37th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 23, 1976, which directed the Board of Elections of Westchester County not to place appellant’s name on the ballot. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances of this case, this proceeding was timely instituted by petitioners and was properly sustained by the Special Term. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to enjoin the respondent Board of Elections of the County of Westchester from placing the name of appellant Joan P. Allgaier on the ballot as a candidate in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 14, 1976 for the public office of State Senator, 37th Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 23, 1976, which directed the Board of Elections of Westchester County not to place appellant’s name on the ballot. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances of this case, this proceeding was timely instituted by petitioners and was properly sustained by the Special Term. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 861, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pataki-v-hayduk-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack