Rusakow v. Sachs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rusakow v. Sachs

57 A.D.2d 637, 393 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11662

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

DecidedApril 26, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 637 (Rusakow v. Sachs) 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

Rusakow v. Sachs, 57 A.D.2d 637, 393 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating appellant Sidney Rusakow as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977 for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 21, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 5, 1977, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Special Term was not without jurisdiction to make a determination as to the validity of the appellant’s designating petitions (see Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 NY2d 494, 496). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating appellant Sidney Rusakow as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977 for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 21, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 5, 1977, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. Special Term was not without jurisdiction to make a determination as to the validity of the appellant’s designating petitions (see Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 NY2d 494, 496). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 637, 393 N.Y.S.2d 689, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rusakow-v-sachs-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack