Pordum v. Suffoletta
97 A.D.2d 982, 468 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20838
Opinion
Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We take judicial notice that pursuant to our prior decision, petitioner would be ineligible to assume the office which he seeks (see Ernewein v Pordum, 96 AD2d 1014). In any event, we concur with Special Term that the Board of Elections properly rejected petitioner’s nominating petition. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — Election Law, § 16-102.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ. (Order entered Oct. 26, 1983.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pordum v. Suffoletta, 97 A.D.2d 982, 468 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).
97 A.D.2d 982 (Pordum v. Suffoletta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ernewein v. Pordum
96 A.D.2d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)