Rosen v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosen v. Epstein

153 A.D.2d 723, 544 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11038

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

DecidedAugust 23, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 153 A.D.2d 723 (Rosen v. Epstein) 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

Rosen v. Epstein, 153 A.D.2d 723, 544 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated proceedings to validate and invalidate petitions designating Norman J. Rosen as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1989, for the public office of District Attorney for the County of Kings, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), entered August 21, 1989, which denied the application to validate the petition (proceeding No. 1) and granted the application to invalidate the petition (proceeding No. 2), and directed that the Board of Elections of the City of New York remove the name of the appellant from the ballot.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application to validate the petition is granted, the application to invalidate the petition is denied, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to restore the name of the appellant Norman J. Rosen to the ballot.

It is undisputed that one volume of the appellant’s petitions was numbered from page 1 to 190. The next consecutive page was numbered 200, thereby creating a gap in the numerical sequence. The Supreme Court invalidated all the signatures after page 190 as a result of this gap in the pagination. We disagree with this determination, and reverse.

"Absent some indication that the [gap was] the result of some fraudulent act, it is manifestly unfair to penalize the signatories who, after all, have the greatest stake in the proper operation of the democratic process” for this minor and inconsequential irregularity (Matter of Farrell v Morgan, 112 AD2d 882, 883).

We have reviewed the cases cited by counsel for the respondents in proceeding No. 1 and the petitioners-respondents in proceeding No. 2 and find that they are distinguishable on their facts. Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Spatt, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated proceedings to validate and invalidate petitions designating Norman J. Rosen as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1989, for the public office of District Attorney for the County of Kings, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), entered August 21, 1989, which denied the application to validate the petition (proceeding No. 1) and granted the application to invalidate the petition (proceeding No. 2), and directed that the Board of Elections of the City of New York remove the name of the appellant from the ballot.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application to validate the petition is granted, the application to invalidate the petition is denied, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to restore the name of the appellant Norman J. Rosen to the ballot.

It is undisputed that one volume of the appellant’s petitions was numbered from page 1 to 190. The next consecutive page was numbered 200, thereby creating a gap in the numerical sequence. The Supreme Court invalidated all the signatures after page 190 as a result of this gap in the pagination. We disagree with this determination, and reverse.

"Absent some indication that the [gap was] the result of some fraudulent act, it is manifestly unfair to penalize the signatories who, after all, have the greatest stake in the proper operation of the democratic process” for this minor and inconsequential irregularity (Matter of Farrell v Morgan, 112 AD2d 882, 883).

We have reviewed the cases cited by counsel for the respondents in proceeding No. 1 and the petitioners-respondents in proceeding No. 2 and find that they are distinguishable on their facts. Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Spatt, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A.D.2d 723, 544 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack