Robinson v. Brock

255 A.D. 308, 7 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4727
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 31, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 308 (Robinson v. Brock) 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
Robinson v. Brock, 255 A.D. 308, 7 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioner has been nominated for the office of commissioner of public welfare in the county of Cattaraugus, both by the Democratic party and by an independent body naming itself Independent Taxpayers party. The independent body has, however, nominated no candidate for any other office. Section 249 of the Election Law contains the following language: “ The names of all candidates nominated by any party or independent body for an office shall always appear in the row or column containing generally the names of candidates nominated by such party or independent body for other offices except as hereinafter provided.” The following provisions of the section have no direct application to the present case. (Matter of Haviland v. Ellrodt, 268 N. Y. 488.) As we read the quoted sentence, its provisions so far as it relates to nominations by an independent body are also not applicable to [309]*309the instant case. The language contemplates nominations by an independent body for more than one office. Otherwise the words “ in the row or column containing generally the names of candidates nominated by such party or independent body for other offices would not have been used. We reach the conclusion, therefore, that a person who is the sole candidate of an independent body is not by the language of this sentence entitled to a separate row or column. A direct precedent for the view expressed is found in Matter of Shaeffer (237 App. Div. 278). The constitutional question sought to be raised has been decided adversely to the petitioner in Matter of Haskell v. Voorhis (246 N. Y. 256). For these reasons the order should be affirmed, without costs.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Order affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Ferran v. Monahan
54 A.D.2d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Hentel v. Power
26 A.D.2d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Gaertner v. McNab
47 Misc. 2d 1064 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
In re Aurelio
266 A.D. 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D. 308, 7 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-brock-nyappdiv-1938.