Reese v. Pokorski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reese v. Pokorski

242 A.D.2d 858, 662 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10376

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 858 (Reese v. Pokorski) 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

Reese v. Pokorski, 242 A.D.2d 858, 662 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s application to invalidate a petition designating Patrick C. Pokorski (respondent) as a candidate for the Town of Lancaster Highway Superintendent in the Republican primary. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing fraud by clear and convincing evidence (see, Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 452). Respondent’s attesting to five signatures when not in proximity with the signers did not warrant the inference that fraud permeated the entire petition (see, Matter of Quinones v Bass, 45 NY2d 811). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J.—Election Law.) Present—Green, J. P., Wisner, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ. (Filed Aug. 20, 1997.)

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s application to invalidate a petition designating Patrick C. Pokorski (respondent) as a candidate for the Town of Lancaster Highway Superintendent in the Republican primary. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing fraud by clear and convincing evidence (see, Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 452). Respondent’s attesting to five signatures when not in proximity with the signers did not warrant the inference that fraud permeated the entire petition (see, Matter of Quinones v Bass, 45 NY2d 811). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J.—Election Law.) Present—Green, J. P., Wisner, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ. (Filed Aug. 20, 1997.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 858, 662 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-pokorski-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack