Rapp v. Wright

218 A.D.2d 776, 630 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8885
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 23, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 A.D.2d 776 (Rapp v. Wright) 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
Rapp v. Wright, 218 A.D.2d 776, 630 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Mary A. Wright, James J. Coyne, Michael P. Egiziaco, Barbara Egiziaco, William Torres, Helen Torres, Samuel Egiziaco, Rosetta Egiziaco, Frank Rubino, Laurene Perillo, Winston David, and Helen David as candidates in a primary election to be held on [777]*777September 12, 1995, for the Republican Party positions of Members of the County Committee in the County of Westchester, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered August 17, 1995, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination of the proceeding on the merits.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, we conclude that the proceeding was timely commenced. The petitioners established that the petitioner Michael R. Rapp, Sr. commenced the proceeding by order to show cause within three business days of the determination of the respondent Westchester County Board of Elections denying his objections (see, Election Law § 16-102 [2]). The respondents' bare conclusory assertion that the determination of the Board of Elections was made at some earlier time is unsupported by any proof in the record (cf., Matter of Eckart v Edelstein, 185 AD2d 955; see also, Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 NY2d 494).

Inasmuch as the Supreme Court did not rule on the specific objections to the petition, we remit the matter for further proceedings on the merits (see, Matter of Pericak v Hooper, 207 AD2d 950). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sirignano v. Sunderland
196 Misc. 2d 831 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Cheevers v. Gates
230 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 A.D.2d 776, 630 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapp-v-wright-nyappdiv-1995.