Ressler v. Smolinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ressler v. Smolinski

83 A.D.2d 986

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

DecidedSeptember 2, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 986 (Ressler v. Smolinski) 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

Ressler v. Smolinski, 83 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Respondents appeal from an order of Special Term granting the petition to validate the designating petition of petitioners candidates on the ground that the alleged defect of failure to specify each petitioner’s term of office was cured by subsequent amendment. No discussion of the effect of the amendment is necessary since the designating petition was valid as filed. Petitioners are incumbents seeking the same positions they now hold, and their names were included on the same designating petition. No possibility of deception, confusion or fraud had been shown. Subdivision 1 of section 6-132 of the Election Law contains no requirement that the term of office be specified in the designating petition. Thus the requirements of the statute have been met (see Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, 45 NY2d 815, 817). (Appeals from order of Erie Supreme Court, Wolf, J. — election law.) Present — Dillon, P.J., Cardamone, Callahan, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

(Decided Sept. 2, 1981.)

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Respondents appeal from an order of Special Term granting the petition to validate the designating petition of petitioners candidates on the ground that the alleged defect of failure to specify each petitioner’s term of office was cured by subsequent amendment. No discussion of the effect of the amendment is necessary since the designating petition was valid as filed. Petitioners are incumbents seeking the same positions they now hold, and their names were included on the same designating petition. No possibility of deception, confusion or fraud had been shown. Subdivision 1 of section 6-132 of the Election Law contains no requirement that the term of office be specified in the designating petition. Thus the requirements of the statute have been met (see Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, 45 NY2d 815, 817). (Appeals from order of Erie Supreme Court, Wolf, J. — election law.) Present — Dillon, P.J., Cardamone, Callahan, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

(Decided Sept. 2, 1981.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ressler-v-smolinski-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack