Ramirez v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. Colon

230 A.D.2d 875, 646 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8614

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

DecidedAugust 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D.2d 875 (Ramirez v. Colon) 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

Ramirez v. Colon, 230 A.D.2d 875, 646 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Julio C. Ramirez as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 10, 1996, for the nominations of the Republican, Conservative, and Freedom parties as their candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Senate for the 16th Senate District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonshein, J.), dated August 5, 1996, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We do not agree with the petitioner’s estoppel argument (see, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, 71 NY2d 274; Kubiniec v Mahoney, 97 AD2d 981).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Julio C. Ramirez as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 10, 1996, for the nominations of the Republican, Conservative, and Freedom parties as their candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Senate for the 16th Senate District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonshein, J.), dated August 5, 1996, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We do not agree with the petitioner’s estoppel argument (see, Matter of Parkview Assocs. v City of New York, 71 NY2d 274; Kubiniec v Mahoney, 97 AD2d 981).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 875, 646 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-colon-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack